Talk:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: March 26, 2008
↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1
About archives

Contents

[edit] campaign staff

I think there should be a mention of field staff in the staff section -- pehaps Paul Tewes and Mitch Stewart. I didn't want to add much to an already long article, but a sentence might do it. What do others think? Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

86.46.205.174 (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Actually that brings up a much better point: this article is way too long, a summary article needs to be written and the other parts federated out into child articles. Campaign Staff certainly ought be an article of its own. Desmond Brennan.

[edit] somali pic redux

still non-notable because the reporting has died down on that specific aspect of the muslim story. It has a text mention which is all it merits. The pic is not even recentism at this point, its just mudslinging. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please revert. I'm coming too close to 3RR. The image was deleted and will be again. If the editor who added it reverts you, he will be in violation of 3RR or close to it. Same goes for the Barack Obama article. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
can't edit main BO because its blocked to IPs lol. I will see what I can do though.. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
That is ironic or sad or whatever considering what is going on here. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Never mind. The image has been redeleted from Wikipedia. According to the admin who performed the deletes, the user uploaded it yet again so has been blocked for a week. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The first occurrence of this image was deleted as a result of this discussion. At least two uploads of it have been deleted since and the current version should be bound by the discussion as well since it is the same. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The rationale for deletion was at least in part that the image wasn't in use, an objection automatically obviated any time it is used. Nor does the discussion make clear why this image fails the fair use rationale that enables us to use other copyrighted images under appropriate conditions. The closest I see is howcheng's assertion of the hypothetical "If [the copyright holder is] a news agency (AP, AFP, etc), there's no way we can keep this." But he doesn't explain why normal fair use of copyrighted media doesn't apply in that case which, as I say, is merely hypothetical. It is difficult to see why the result of a discussion that fails such a basic test should be considered binding. And, btw, the uploader, user:James_Luftan, has never been blocked. Please clarify. Andyvphil (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
also it violates recentism by giving undue weight to a subject that has not been reported on by anyone since last tuesday at least, prolly far longer. if you are so convinced it belongs on the page surely you could have put in some effort (in the intervening weeks) besides getting mad, after the fact, when someone else attempts an upload. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
There haven't been "intervening weeks" and I haven't "[gotten] mad, after the fact, when someone else attempts an upload." It's hard to divine what you might mean, if anything. Andyvphil (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
just the weeks since when 'harry barrow' first appeared on the seen uploading it, and now here we are with you supporting (some of) the actions of a user with a 7-day block. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Andyvphil, what does James_Luftan have to do with this? →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
He uploaded the image which the discussion was about. There was a comment which seemed to imply ("the user uploaded it yet again so has been blocked") he'd been blocked. Didn't happen. Hence my request for clarification. Mainly I'd like clarification of why, putting aside any content disagreements about undue weight or suchlike, it didn't meet fair use criteria. The discussion you said should govern didn't make that case, so far as I can see. Andyvphil (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
even if it wasn't a copyvio, it wouldn't be on the page because of the undue weight problem it has. so why try and save it if its an instant orphan?72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The blocked user is Harry Barrow, who re-uploaded the image after it had been deleted. He was warned to not uploaded it again after that but failed to heed the warning. Fair use cannot be asserted in the absence of notability. This event is not notable based on WP:Recentism. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
RECENTISM is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and it is less negative on the subject of the appropriateless and usefulness of recentism than many editors, who cite the word or bluelink it without evidently having read the essay, seem to think. The narrative of an ongoing political campaign seems precisely a place where recentism is appropriate, as contemplated in the essay. WP:N has no direct application here. As the guideline says, "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." The sentence "Fair use cannot be asserted in the absence of notability" is a non sequitur. Try again. Andyvphil (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

just finished reading it too. yes the picture is not notable because of lack of current reporting, weasel-status, etc. all of which you have misunderstood, because of your recentist myopia. which is why we keep telling you about it, because you keep seeming like you don't understand the concept, as you just did right there... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC) think about this "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the difficulty in understanding you comes from the fact that you don't yourself know what you're talking about. "Lack of current reporting"? It was a big fuss within the last two weeks. All the reporting is "current" by any reasonable definition. "weasel-status"? Perfect example of you being unable to communicate because you have nothing to communicate. "coverage of that individual..." What individual? We're talking about providing an image discussed by the text, not an individual.
Here's the applicable guidelines for unacceptable use [1]:

5. An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)
6. A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos (some of which are later donated into the public domain: example).

Note that neither applies, since the photo is the subject of sourced commentary in the article, and does not have its own article which can be linked to as a substitute for displaying it here. Andyvphil (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
why on earth are you quoting inapplicable arguments for why something shouldn't be used? didn't momma teach you two wrongs don't make a right lol? anyways you're welcome to go try and find out what consensus is on that image lol. you've been talking big game, but you haven't dared rv yet and we all know why. you and me also both know that the image gives undue weight to a subject- and that is the essential reason you won't win on this issue. Undue weight because, as you are about right with "two weeks" but that was also when the first reporting came out. So if we devoted a separate pic to every three days of the Obama campaign the page would be draggin' ass (as they say).
also I have been reading a little Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terms_that_are_technically_accurate_but_carry_an_implied_viewpoint and I wouldn't expect a lot of your edits in "media coverage of religious background" to maintain consensus much longer. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not quoting "arguments". I'm quoting an official "Guideline example" stating that "if the image has its own article" then it's an exception to the general rule that "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image" is fair use. The example obviously makes no sense unless the latter is true. Andyvphil (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
which doesn't answer nuthin' about undue weight (for the third time) I know I know, maybe if you keep pretending I didn't say it, it will just go away, huh? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
One subject at a time. First the copyvio allegation, then whether Obama-in-a-turban is of less significance than Obama-with-a-mike. People whose thinking is clearer than yours try not to turn every question into goulash. Andyvphil (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

When there's a disagreement, it's about coming to a consensus. Though you may not agree with it, Andyvphil, this matter has been decided. That's why the picture was deleted in the first place. →Wordbuilder (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:CCC. "...when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree." Or, in this case, image, not article. I did not participate in the image deletion discussion and do not see that the argument that it is allowed under the WP:NONFREE guideline was either developed or answered. There's a legitimate concern that the copyright holder has not been properly identified, but if that's done I see no other copyright concern in the fair use of this image. And my opinion is that the passage discussing the image is significantly enhanced by showing the image here, rather than making the reader follow a link to see for himself what is being mentioned. If you disagree, that's just a content dispute, not copyright policy enforcement. Andyvphil (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
consensus can change, but consensus is still opposing you. please remember that the last person advocating use of this image got a seven-day block through the actions of four separate editors who I can remember of the top of my head. let me know if you think two weeks is enough time for one user (you) to totally outweigh what others have been doing for weeks. You have lost this battle repeatedly on the content issue and on the free-rights issue. which is why you can't win an rv war and aren't even trying lol. Basically a pic is not "enhancing" a section if the pic only refers to an extremely small portion to the section text, let alone the entire articles text. this is doubly true for a pic that is open to misinterpretation and was used in a libelous and POV way in the past. Also the lack of any current reporting on the subject (or past reporting outside of a month) indicates that its notability is currently served adequately by the text reference, portraying it as part of the other smear campaigns.
again andy, in the future please find four other editors who agree with your theories before you start spamming the page with anti-consensus arguments that are just wasting time and bandwidth unless verified by other more neutral users. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The one thing I can usually rely upon is that anything you say will be wrong. User:Hux uploaded the image and Wordbuilder reverted, I restored it, and Wordbuilder reverted again, pointing to the discussion here. As far as I know, Hux hasn't been blocked. Nor have I "lost" the battles on content (the "Media coverage of Obama's religious background" now makes the distinctions I insisted upon) or..."free-rights"? Whazzat? I doubt if I've "lost any battles" over it, whatever it is. And it's hard to "misinterpret" a pic labelled "This photo of Obama dressed in ethnic Somali clothing appeared on the Drudge Report, attributed to a Clinton staffer."[2] The image clearly illuminates the text ("The photo was interpreted as suggesting Muslim garb,...") and your suggested criteria, that an image is appropriate only if it somehow illustrates a entire section, doesn't appear to fit anything except the first head shot. As to the lack of current reporting, you are merely ignorant of it. E.g., [3], [4]. And that's not really important anyway. The real test will be seeing if when the next time the subject of the section becomes the flavor of the day (Currently still the Clinton-is-a-monster advisor resignation? Replaced the Canada-I-don't-really-mean-what-I'm-saying-about-NAFTA flap. Obama-in-a-turban is several flavors back.) will Obama-in-a-turban get a mention. If it does, this article ought to provide inquiring web surfers NPOV on what that mention is about. And the image would be helpful. Andyvphil (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
andy I hope you realize that providing two "cites" there when they are carbon-copies, one a wire service report and the other a reprint- thats misleading editing ok? Not like I care but someone keeps asking me to bring "diffs" over to the "sockpuppet page" whatever that all means... so you managed to find one piece of reporting, in fact not campaign reporting, and in fact the title of which directly contradicts the thrust of your arguments concerning the pic. you must've looked pretty hard for that, and thats the best you could find, so I can only imagine how this applies to the "ten-year" notability guideline from wp:recentism (a tome I know you love andy) which gets discussed below. and I think we will need more than a "soft two" cites to verify recent reporting72.0.180.2 (talk) 08:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
"Also the lack of any current reporting on the subject..." Emphasis in original. One cite was sufficient to prove that you were once again wrong. And it was easy to find. I was trying spock.com for the first time and it popped right up. And wrong again that the title("Kenyan Elder Says Obama Dress Cultural") "directly contradicts the thrust of [my] arguments" -- what part of "This photo of Obama dressed in ethnic Somali clothing..." did you miss? And your reading of the "ten-year test" mentioned in wp:recentism is a misunderstanding as well. "For example, in 2004 devoting more time on George W. Bush's page to the ongoing election rather than his previous one may have seemed logical. However, in ten years, when neither event is fresh, readers will benefit from a similar level of detail in both articles" and "After 'recentist' articles have calmed down... concerned Wikipedians ought to initiate comprehensive rewrites." This article is still in the 2004/recentist phase. Save your "ten year test" for the rewrite when the campaign is over. Do you go through life being wrong about everything? Andyvphil (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

ah the ten-year test. you forget that this is a campaign article, not the main bio page. So we need to ask ourselves a decade from now, will the multi-year campaign, and its entire heritage debates, be best summed up by pic from a smear campaign, a subject which does not have anywhere near a majority or plurality of text in the section, which was actively reported for a fortnight at most? the answer being no, and I didn't need to post duplicate cites to prove that. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from the editor who recently added the photo

Wow! I see there's quite a bit of discussion on this. Hopefully I can add something constructive to it. First, however, please note that (for what it's worth) I was the one who recently added the image to the article (though I did not upload the image; my involvement in this stems from this PUI entry). Please also note (again, for what it's worth) that I am planning to vote for Obama in my state's upcoming primary.
So, that said, I see two issues here:

  1. Should the image be allowed on Wikipedia in general?
  2. Should the image be included in this article?

Point #1 is a no brainer: according to Wikipedia policy on the use of non-free content, a copyrighted image of a living person can be used in order to illustrate an article (or part of an article) that is specifically about that image, provided that the image is tagged as copyrighted and a detailed Fair Use rationale is given for that specific article on which it is used. This image clearly satisfies that policy.
Point #2, however, is more debatable. To address the question properly, I think we need to put ourselves in the shoes of someone reading this article a year from now and ask ourselves: was this photo notable in this campaign? Surely the answer has to be "yes", doesn't it? I mean it's clearly very notable right now - a Google News search for "Obama" and "Somali" yields over a thousand results, pretty much all of which look to be about that specific photo in some way - and I think in the long run it will remain as a point of discussion when people go back and examine the campaign. Whether or not Obama is a Muslim has been a major part of this primary campaign, one that Obama himself has addressed many times in response to such "accusations". This photo represents the focal point of that issue, illustrating the way in which the issue has been used as a political smear against him. To draw a parallel, eight years ago the Bush campaign smeared John McCain by implying that he had fathered an illegitimate black child (in fact, he and his wife had adopted an orphaned girl from Bangladesh). People are still talking about that as an aspect of McCain's 2000 presidential bid, so there's every reason to expect that people will be talking about this photo and the "Obama is a Muslim" smear when they reflect back on this campaign.
In addition to the above, I think it's also important to point something out: if the consensus is that the photo is not sufficiently notable then, implicitly, the part of the article that discusses the photo is equally non-notable. There's no logic for justifying the inclusion of one but not the other; either the incident is notable enough or it isn't. If it is - and people certainly seem to think so given that nobody is trying to delete the text - then the photo should be there as well.
I think I make a pretty decent case for keeping the photo in the article and I welcome any comments the rest of you may have. I think there's a good chance that we can reach a solid consensus here. -- Hux (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

well you are totally wrong about this pic being the focal point of the muslim issue. Considering he has been campaigning for over a year, with muslim discussion all the time, the appearance of the pic only a few weeks ago means... you are wrong on that. Maybe you should read the long, heavily-cited section where all of these situations are analyzed, so you would know what the history is of the subject you claim to speak. (focal point of the issue, lol). And regarding your "one-year-from-now" theory, WP:Recentism advocates, in fact, a ten-year window and I find the image fails that test. Also you seem to show a limited knowledge of the image context. The image is in fact, a POOR illustration of the obama/muslim controversy, because it is a pic of him wearing the clothes of a different tribe and different ethnicity from those of his muslim father, a Kenyan Luo (thanx pharos) not a Somali at all. So that image is only connected to Obama's heritage by those who "get in wrong" and improperly connect one tribes dress, with the actual tribe of Obama's heritage, and THEN FURTHERMORE connect these ceremonial clothes with actual muslim religious clothes. As you can see a series of false connections are being made, and while some believe these connections, and others promote them, it does not make it right. What it falls to level of, like so much else these days, is campaign literature. We are not in the habit of printing the text or images of campaign flyers and other literature on the WP, and I don't think this is a great argument for an exception. Considering the numerous inherent factual errors and misinterpretations in general-use of that picture, I doubt it illuminates or provides any context for the larger muslim rumors section, which currently in both our section text, and in media buzz, seems to find the Indonesia thing the "focal point of the issue", not the again-deleted, borderline BLP-violating pic. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 08:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
72.0.180.2: I would appreciate it if, rather than jumping immediately to the conclusion that I am ignorant, you assume good faith and consider the possibility that a) I do actually know what I'm talking about, and b) you might just have the wrong end of the stick here. Allow me to explain:
  • "you are totally wrong about this pic being the focal point of the muslim issue" - I didn't say that it's the focal point of the Muslim issue. I said it represents the focal point of that issue, i.e. that it sums up in ways that mere words cannot the way in which Obama has been smeared about being a Muslim. I probably could've worded that part better though, so apologies for causing you to misunderstand.
  • "regarding your "one-year-from-now" theory, WP:Recentism advocates" - WP:Recentism is an essay, not policy. As it says right at the top, "editors are not obliged to follow it". If you believe that it is (or should be) treated as gospel then you're completely entitled to that opinion, of course, but until it actually becomes policy it's not reasonable for you to cite it as though it is.
  • "The image is in fact, a POOR illustration of the obama/muslim controversy, because it is a pic of him wearing the clothes of a different tribe and different ethnicity from those of his muslim father" - With respect, you're missing the point. The precise type of clothing and what that clothing implies to people who have knowledge of Somali dress is irrelevant here. The incident we are discussing is the use of this photo to smear Obama and the photo was distributed precisely for that purpose. It wouldn't matter if he was wearing traditional Saudi, Kuwaiti, or Jordanian clothing; the justification for its inclusion would be the same because the result - fooling ignorant people into thinking he's a Muslim - would've been the same. See what I mean?
  • "What it falls to level of, like so much else these days, is campaign literature. We are not in the habit of printing the text or images of campaign flyers and other literature on the WP, and I don't think this is a great argument for an exception." - This assertion makes no sense given that this image has never appeared in any campaign literature, nor is it associated with any campaign beyond the level of allegation. Further, I disagree strongly with your argument in general, given that it implicitly advocates the removal of all information about contentious campaign incidents that might be seen as having a negative effect on that campaign. That kind of censorship is not remotely in accordance with Wikipedia's mission, a mission whose focus is notability and verifiability, two factors that eminently apply to this image.
  • "I doubt it illuminates or provides any context for the larger muslim rumors section" - Your opinion does not jibe with Wikipedia's, which strongly encourages editors to make use of images specifically because they illustrate a topic in an immediate, striking way that words alone cannot. This particular image (with an appropriate caption) instantly conveys a story to the reader: the story of Obama being smeared as a Muslim, a story that is undeniably notable. An good parallel here is this image of Gary Hart, which as you can see is being used to illustrate an almost identical incident. According to your argument, this image should also be deleted. To me that makes no sense, just as it makes no sense to discuss the notability of the Obama image in this article, but not actually include the image itself so that people can better see what's going on. -- Hux (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
no need to jump to conclusions, your writing speaks for itself. after reading your screed I feel the need to remind you that this issue DOES have a full paragraph of text and has been that way for weeks. you even admit that "the photo was distributed precisely for that purpose. [to smear]". So I just don't think WP is in the business of further distributing smear pics.
  • You have made no argument for what NPOV, academic concept that pic illustrates.
  • You have made no argument for why the negative of extreme ease of misinterpretation, is outweighed by the greater positive of "illustration" or "understanding" of the issue.
  • You have made no argument for notability, considering again the equivalent text in the article is only a small minority of the total text from that section
  • You have made no argument for notability, considering Andyvphil has provided exactly one instance of recent reporting on the pic, and you have provided zero instances.
  • You have made no argument against undue weight, specifically that this pic does not violate it
While I am glad you have read wp:recentism, I am worried that you seem so comfortable with disregarding pragmatic advice if not outright WP:policy. Especially when I don't think this image has a good case for an exception, which is I think what you guys are looking for.
Like I said on the image page, BLP requires us to edit conservatively, with regard for privacy. Someone who has regular questions about his religion anyways, who posses a politically-charged heritage from day one, who's very appearance generates visceral reactions in many of his fellow citizens let alone the worldwide responses, I feel expects and deserves from this privacy the idea that WP will treat "conservatively" images of that person when they concern all the previously mentioned, highly-charged situations.
Also, if the copyvio situation ever gets figured out, and you do somehow discover a notability consensus on this, please remember that this image will need accompanying text and caption, all which will have to conform exactly to the standards referenced above including notability, npov, and blp. And it will have to explain proper context including actual obama heritage, perceived obama heritage, and actual facts concerning kenyan somaili's, etc. All this have to be done concisely, and even in the caption, or we will run an unacceptable risk of propagating the same misunderstanding you claim to be trying so hard to clear-up. And I think all of this text is possible, but not with the page's current set of editors and secretive wierdo IPs. I just think some people might try to coatrack the shit out that text, pardon the french. And I will be unhappy indeed. expect a bit of trouble if that text isn't bulletproof from day one- IF that pic ever lasts past a five-minute upload lol. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
72.0.180.2: I would appreciate it if you could adopt a more civil attitude. Implying that I'm ignorant and dismissing my efforts to improve this article as mere "screed" is unhelpful and unproductive. It's clear that we disagree on this but I see no reason why we cannot discuss this like respectful adults.
"I just don't think WP is in the business of further distributing smear pics" - Correct. However, when such images transcend their original purpose and crossover to become broadly notable and internationally newsworthy in and of themselves, WP absolutely is in the business of discussing them, as it does with the Gary Hart image I mentioned in my last post. Another example is this image of Marion Barry. Clearly there is a precedent here.
ps- both of those pics have no reasonable possibility of misinterpretation tho. 05:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"You have made no argument for what NPOV, academic concept that pic illustrates" - The fact that coverage specifically about the effect of the photo release has appeared all over the mainstream media proves that this is not a NPOV issue.
"You have made no argument for why the negative of extreme ease of misinterpretation, is outweighed by the greater positive of "illustration" or "understanding" of the issue" - On the contrary, I've done just that in my last several posts, where I focus on the notability of the photo, which imo trumps its potential misinterpretation. In any case, you yourself outline ways in which any potential misinterpretation could be eliminated by presenting it correctly in Wikipedia, so this is a non-issue.
"You have made no argument for notability, considering again the equivalent text in the article is only a small minority of the total text from that section" - I don't think this argument is relevant. There is no rule in situations like this where the text describing the photo must represent greater than X% of the whole. If the incident is sufficiently notable to talk about then the photo that the incident is all about is sufficiently notable too.
"You have made no argument for notability, considering Andyvphil has provided exactly one instance of recent reporting on the pic, and you have provided zero instances" - That is not correct. I have mentioned the incident's notability by pointing to the 1,000+ stories about it on Google News. But if you need specific links to reliable sources: BBC, Washington Post, New York Times, The Guardian, Associated Press (via MSNBC), Reuters, The Times, CNN. Significantly, I've yet to find a major news outlet that has not covered this incident, so dismissing this on the basis of non-notability simply doesn't fly.
"You have made no argument against undue weight, specifically that this pic does not violate it" - The section talking about the various attacks on Obama's religion and heritage is currently running at almost 1,000 words. There is no way that adding this photo in order to illustrate the discussion about this photo and about those attacks in general constitutes undue weight.
"BLP requires us to edit conservatively, with regard for privacy." - Privacy is a non-issue here given that, once again, this photo has appeared in and been discussed all over the mainstream media.
"if the copyvio situation ever gets figured out" - It is already sorted out. There is no copyvio problem with including a copyrighted photo in an article section about that photo, under a proper Fair Use rationale. This is a non-issue.
Regarding how to fairly present the photo, I agree that such fairness is important, but imo you go way overboard in what constitutes such fairness. As long as the caption makes it clear a) what the photo is, and b) that it was used as a political smear, then that's perfectly adequate given that the broader explanation of the photo appears in the text. There is no need for the caption (or the text for that matter) to say anything about the fact that the clothes worn in the photo are unrelated to Obama's African heritage because such heritage has nothing to do with the nature of the smear, which is what the story is about.
Regarding your comments about other editors, I don't think they are appropriate. But in any case, imo there are not currently enough eyes on this discussion to reach a decent consensus so I think what I'll do is put out an RfC and see if we can't get some more opinions. -- Hux (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
so begins your waterloo perhaps. I have been itching for a rfc for weeks but as an IP I didn't have the nuts. thank god someone else does. And I know I have treated most other editors on this page with total kindness so that should tell you something.
notability- boy I sure jumped into this discussion without doing any research huh? I mean if I could miss such a basic thing like number of google news hits. You are right there are over 1000 hits for "Obama Somali" and other such variations, but guess what there are over 6000 for "obama muslim" so again i don't think that something representing (at most) 1/6th of the discourse, is in fact "representing the discourse," if you follow me. and you plow right over all my other non-notable arguments so again thank god for the RFC. And there still isn't any evidence of recent reporting (andyvphil at least tried but you did not). Maybe why I am a bit short with you is because I have been watching people show up and try to post analysis from both sides on this page, again and again for months, and we always use the same standard no matter what the "spin" is. The edit must involve a consistent, several-week long reporting record, which this image just does not meet. If you have looked at the google news hits then you know that the first few pages of most recent hits are almost all "tertiary" type reporting on the larger muslim issue, which mentions the somali pic as part of larger phenomena. there is very little reporting any more on the actual image itself. Yes it was reported for a week by all those fabulous mainstream sources you mentioned, but then what?
Don't you think that if the image was legitimately still an issue in the campaign, with campaign effort or widespread public discussion still occuring on it, don't you think maybe you would have a better rationale for inclusion? It seems like all you have right now is "it exists" and "it was reported on at the time". I guess I feel that if it really was a campaign issue, it would have some third event confirming the first two. And I think that if anti-obama forces were still getting play on the image, they would have found a way to re-introduce it again. But no, all we have is original event and the intervening echoes, originally in the "real" media and now here, This RFC is hopefully one of the last dim reverberations of the whole issue. Again, it is a perfect example as part of the heritage controversy, where most of the allegations get their "five minutes". You have made no headway or even an attempt at headway on how this image is more notable than all the other instances, which is what WP would imply by giving it a pic. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
First, the "PS" comment you inserted into my previous post is baseless by your own admission: once again, you yourself have asserted that any "misinterpretation" would be obviated by an adequate caption wherever this image would be used. So, as I already stated earlier, that one is a non-issue.
Second, your objection to the Google News search for "Obama somali" makes no sense. I specifically cited that particular search term because it appears to bring up articles only about this photo (obviously I didn't check out every single one of the 1,000+ links, but I checked at least the first fifty and every single one of them was about the photo. Given that all I was trying to show was the fact that it has been widely discussed that, along with the direct links I posted, was clearly sufficient.
Third, you make the argument that although the photo has been widely discussed in the media, it is too recent to know whether it will remain notable and that therefore it should not be in the article. This is one point of view, based on the "recentism" essay, and you're entitled to it, but I say again: it is not policy. I happen to disagree on the overall Wikiphilosophy argument that you and the "recentism" essay make. That's another point of view and I'm entitled to that. Neither of our viewpoints represents policy. The difference between the two is that you are presenting yours as if it is. That is not reasonable.
Fourth, you ignored this when I first mentioned it so I'll say it again: if you're arguing for the non-appearance of this photo on the basis of recentism then you must also be arguing for the non-appearance of any description of it in the text on the same basis. Either the story of this image is notable enough for inclusion or it isn't. If it is then both the text and the image can be in the article. If it's not then neither can be.
Fifth, here are a few more analogous photos currently in use that serve as precedents for the Obama one: Donald Rumsfeld greets Saddam Hussein; John Kerry and Jane Fonda; Michael Dukakis in a tank. (Thank you for pointing me to that last one; I was not planning to link to the one I uploaded myself since that would've been dishonest, but if it hadn't been for this silliness I never would've known that a version already existed.) -- Hux (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
the difference being all those refs are from press releases, but not the obama one. So pray tell why did you upload the dukakis image then lol? finally please check your definition of recent reporting! you seem to think that several weeks prior counts as recent reporting, which is not the standard this page has been using, since well before you starting editing here. So again please start using the consensus terms if you expect to reach consensus. Finally since when have I said wp:recent is policy?? jeez man don't they say get it right? How bout this little rasberry from me-"WP:Recentism advocates" and gosh jimminy I think I do know the difference between the word advocate and the word require (3 days ago no less)
finally I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner to your idea that the whole ENTIRE "obama heritage" section falls under the undue weight umbrella of recentism- I didn't realize you were serious. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see what press releases have to do anything. The salient point is that all the photos I mentioned caused in controversy over the images themselves and had some kind of a negative effect on their subjects. Of the ones I listed, the two that are virtually identically analogous to the Obama photo are the Gary Hart and John Kerry images. Both were released by those who wanted to bring down their respective presidential campaigns, and both resulted in widespread reporting in the mainstream media. The next most analogous photo is the Dukakis one, the only difference being that his campaign deliberately released it in the hope that it would boost his campaign, when in fact it backfired spectacularly. The Marion Barry and Donald Rumsfeld photos are slightly different (but still somewhat analogous) since they were released by official sources and were thus not smear attempts as such (although the latter has been used to smear its subject long after the fact).
So as far as I can tell, we have two almost precisely analogous photos that are considered perfectly fine on Wikipedia. The only significant difference between them and the Obama photo is that significant time has passed between now and the time of the initial controversy, cementing their notability. You strongly believe that this is a critical factor and that the Obama photo should therefore not be used. I strongly disagree. It is difficult to see how we will be able to reach consensus on this.
Regarding your comment, "since when have I said wp:recent is policy??" Please note that I never said you did. I said that you have been citing the "Recentism" essay as if it were policy, i.e. in a way that suggests it is inarguable. (If you don't agree then fine.) Believe it or not, I choose my words carefully and I mean exactly what I say.
Finally, I don't think that "the whole ENTIRE "obama heritage" section falls under the undue weight umbrella of recentism". I'm not sure where you got that from. I think the existing weight in the text given to discussion of this photo versus the broader, "is Obama a Muslim", smear controversy is perfectly adequate and I don't think that adding this photo in order to help readers better understand what is being discussed would make any difference to that. -- Hux (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
it saddens me that i am again in the position of providing you with the same section of the BLP REQUIREMENTS: "written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."
other than hart, all your pics were originally from official gov't or campaigns. Hence inherently free-rights, unlike (AGAIN) the obama pic! all other pics besides marion barry were taken with the consent of the subjects. the obama pic was also taken without his consent.
This is very crux of privacy!- whether we use a non-consenting pic (in low-res copyrighted style) simply because it illustrates 1/6 of one section? And we all know that is not "conservative" and it is not prudent. Yes there is a bar for acceptance of non-consenting, paparazzi-style smear pics (somewhere), but I just don't think your argument has met that bar yet.72.0.180.2 (talk) 09:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It saddens me that I am again in the position of explaining to you how you are totally misinterpreting the BLP requirements: the point of the privacy/tabloid/sensationalist part is to forbid the inclusion of tabloid-style material that is only there for a sensationalist purpose. This is not such an example. This is an image that has, undeniably, received attention across the entire spectrum of the mainstream and non-mainstream media. As Bigtimepeace notes below: "the picture is the story". When the photo has been featured in every single major media outlet on the planet, citing privacy concerns is self-evidently a non-issue. In addition, as WP:BLP itself notes: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it" (bold emphasis mine). The crux of this is not privacy and BLP clearly does not support your position here. The crux is notability.
Regarding the analogous images I linked, whether or not they are freely usable or copyrighted is wholly irrelevant here; we've already dealt with the copyvio issue perfectly adequately. In addition, you are mistaken that the Kerry photo is from an official government or campaign source. It is a composite of two separate photos that was released deliberately as a smear against the Kerry campaign, just like the Hart image was released as a smear against the Hart campaign, just like the Obama image was released as a smear against the Obama campaign. That is the salient issue here.
Finally: "the obama pic was also taken without his consent" - Do you have proof of this? Because given that he was on an official visit and given that it looks very much like he is doing something official in that photo - i.e. being shown an example of local clothing and accoutrements - it strikes me as rather more likely that this was some kind of local press photo, or a snapshot from a bystander. -- Hux (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
well if it is "a snapshot from a bystander" that is exactly what I mean by "non-consenting paparazzi style" and as far as notability goes why don't you check the history of this page for the past few months so you might know what our consistent notability standards ACTUALLY ARE. I can see from your edit history that you don't edit the current political pages much. Probably a wise decision on your part. But what you would know if you did edit them, is that the HRC, McCain, and Obama pges all use the same standards for notability, especially on the fast-moving 2008 campaign pages. The tony rezko pic never got on the HRC campaign page, and I feel this is a very similar situation in some ways. There is a standard of long-term reporting which I keep telling you and you keep not responding to. We have not and do not, provide undue weight to any story which is reported on and then moved past by media outlets. If it lasts a week or two it gets mentioned in the proper text section. If it lasts longer than that it often appears in a new section or a re-styled section. If it appears likely to last it is often pre-emptively added. As happened with the text of the somali event. Everything happened according to proceedure until you two showed up and claimed some "higher-degree" of notability for this one smear out of so many, we the regular editors, have dealt with over the long campaign. So again, please check out some edit histories across the different campaign pages and get a feel for how we use notability on these pages. You will find that simple volume of reporting is less important than the volume of reporting over time, and compared to overall volume of campaign reporting. neither attempted upload has met these standards for one second.
ps- you'd think if I was so POV I would have challenged that somali-pic text more. But I have never touched it or many other negative (for obama) sections of text. As you might know from talking with andyvphil, I am actually an inclusionist when it comes to text. I just feel that images have a higher standard, especially possibly inflammatory ones. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"There is a standard of long-term reporting which I keep telling you and you keep not responding to. We have not and do not, provide undue weight to any story which is reported on and then moved past by media outlets." - On the contrary, I've responded to it a number of times; I simply don't agree with you. Your implied assertion that you (in the form of the royal "we") own this page is prima facie nonsense. You have your opinion about what deserves to be included. I have mine. A group of editors enforcing their own interpretation of policy, creating immutable "procedure" based on their shared agreement of what some essay suggests, then fighting against all contrary viewpoints is precisely what Wikipedia is not about.
(Of course, you say "we the regular editors", but to be honest I only see you and one other person who agrees with you, and since you've already exhibited a tendency to talk as if representing a mass of silent, like-minded people when no such mass actually exists...)
"Everything happened according to proceedure until you two showed up and claimed some "higher-degree" of notability for this one smear out of so many" - Not once have I argued that the image should be included based on a "higher degree" of notability. I have consistently argued that if discussion of the image is sufficiently notable for the article, then the image the discussion is about is sufficiently notable for the article. I've said this a number of times and every time you've just ignored it.
"you'd think if I was so POV I would have challenged that somali-pic text more" - I fail to see the relevance of this. I haven't raised any POV issue whatsoever in this entire conversation. Perhaps the lady doth protest too much. -- Hux (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
yes the lady doth protest A LOT when people spam the talk page and they have never edited here before! and they don't seem very inclined to FIGURING OUT procedure on this page or others like it. Then the lady doth stalk people's edit history lol. and catch them doing dirty deeds...LOL.
anyways yes I am the only one willing to bang out 6,000 words on an already deleted and current not verified for fair-use pic- besides you of course. But you seem to forget the result of the actual edits involving that pic, eh? If I rememebr, you and a couple others got rv-ed out the door on several separate occasions, by more editors than just me. A lot more. Some people have better sense than to waste their evenings on talk pages, and those people probably make better edits too- just because they are silent does not mean they are wrong. Boy I sure wish I was powerful enough to disrupt consensus by myself, but that is just a fantasy. Surely some other editor out of your hypothetical "silent mass" would have re-attempted an upload, if they felt it was such a slam dunk as you do, and if the "silent majority" agreed with you as you claim. But instead the "silent majority" shows itself to be- 5 different editors who rv the uploads, 2 editors who argue on the talk page against it, and 2 others who delete the files. compared to your "three or so" supported I think clearly what we have is "consensus is not a yes/no vote" ha ha! but those are the numbers, even if they don't count (like michigan) 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems you're unaware of the meaning of "the lady doth protest too much". Oh well. And I think it's a bit rich that you of all people are trying to imply that I make poor edits. What percentage of yours are even in article space? 5% at best? And the bulk of those appear to be reversions. Impressive!
In any case, contrary to your dishonest attempt to paint a false picture of my actions, I uploaded the image and added it to the article precisely once, without any knowledge of the preceding discussion about said image, or the fact that it had been uploaded and reverted previously. I didn't attempt to force it in there again because - duh! - edit warring is unreasonable and unproductive. But the fact that I didn't try to do that says absolutely nothing about the strength of the argument for its inclusion, nor does it imply any consensus whatsoever against such inclusion. The fact that until this issue I hadn't edited this particular article also says absolutely nothing about the strength of the argument for the image's inclusion. Oh and I've never argued that there is a "silent majority" supporting my position - you're the only one who's relied on that fallacy.
Right now, there is zero consensus either way on this. All we have are two editors who disagree, another two who do not appear interested in taking part in the discussion, and one outside editor who agrees with my position. Hopefully, the RfC and my request at the BLP talk page will prompt more editors to give their opinions and then hopefully we can make some headway on this. Right now though, we are at an impasse, however much you may like to portray yourself as a the flag bearer for the One True Perspective. -- Hux (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

and the view is beautiful from up here! ps- consensus is defined in many ways by editing actions and not talk (be bold etc). so when you make your "editor-tallies" please keep in mind the numerous souls besides me who have "voted with their feet" in regards to that image, true some before you were active on this page. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page Break- Somali pic

I agree with 72. Using the picture to illustrate or even suggest any Obama-Muslim connection is inaccurate. As an encyclopedia, that is precisely what Wikipedia should avoid even the hint of. The clothing is cultural, not religious. It would be as rediculous as saying a Somali tribal leader dressed in a Western-style three-piece suit is automatically a Christian simply because that is a predominant religion of the region. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The texts, both of caption and illustrated, does not suggest an actual Obama-Muslim connection. The latter says "The photo was interpreted as suggesting Muslim garb,..."(this point directly supported by the cite) "... and the Obama campaign accused the Clinton campaign of “shameful, offensive fear-mongering”". Would an inserted "...photo of what was Somali cultural and not religious garb...", adding suspenders to the belt already in place, satisfy you? Andyvphil (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hux, what you say all sounds sensible to me, but what you call a "no-brainer" hasn't stopped someone from deleting the image you supplied a rationale for, apparently without waiting the number of days specified as correct procedure and with an explantion (G4: recreation of deleted material) that explicitly does not apply to what was originally a speedy deletion. The original incarnation of this image was deleted with the comment: "The result of the debate was speedy deletion per CSD G12, C5. Image is plainly a copyright violation and is unused. ChrisO (talk) 08:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)".[5]
As I observed above, the "unused" part is obviated by using it, and the delay should have served to prevent obstructive deletion during this content dispute. I have left a message on ChrisO's talk page asking him to expand on why or if he disagrees with us about fair use policy. Andyvphil (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It one sense it is odd that Delecionistas can keep an otherwise appropriate image from appearing on Wikipedia due their repeated votes through their keyboard backspace keys.
But---let's think about it... The suppressed image is "like Paris Hilton: famous for being famous"---and by this measure is certainly more "notable" than 99% of the pix on Wikipedia. And while the controversy that the pic illustrates, if tangentially, is also notable and while the arguments that the pic Cannot!!/is unable to be used are pretty weak; still, the argument that it ought be used is still really an editorial judgment call.
Which now leads us back to the Delecionista-guerrillas-versus-the-Inclusionista-conscripts back-and-forth we're here experiencing on Wikipedia. And the simple fact is that the guirrillas will win (as long as the campaign is being waged) and that's just the nature of the game (because "pro" folks will naturally dominate the editing of a popular, liberal politician on a public-access online encyclopedia). And so be it. After all, what's the loss, really? A pic of a politician in ethnic garb somewhere? Big deal! (PS, I'll save User Wasted Time R the trouble and post what's sure to be yet again his response here: "Huh?" <lol>)--Justmeherenow (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
But what about the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD's? Your deletionist/inclusionist summary is clearly nothing but a bigoted false dichotomy! :-) -- Hux (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm commenting here as an outsider who has not worked on the article. I don't think this is a clear cut case, but assuming the image can be used (in terms of fair use and all that) I definitely lean toward allowing it in the article (full disclosure: though I may or may not ultimately vote for him, I do hope Obama wins the presidency). What is critical is that the article text and the caption provide background information for the reader. For one thing, it should be definitively determined if the garb worn by Obama is "religious" in any sense or merely standard tribal clothing. How is it viewed by folks who typically wear it? It's worth it to take some time to figure that out.
The reason I think the picture ought to be included though is that the picture is the story. Of all the nonsensical assertions about Obama's secret Muslim identity, this is the only one that was solely based on a photograph - without it there simply is no story. We should also look at this from a historical point of view. Certainly if one were to think back on key images from the 2008 campaign years from now, this photo of Obama will (unfortunately) leap to mind (I'm sure it will be re-printed in books in the future). We ought not keep it out (given its importance to the topic being discussed in the article) simply because the whole Muslim baloney is baloney and because Obama obviously would prefer it if this photo was seen less and less. Instead, the text should quote sources that explain that it's standard for politicians to dress in local garb when travelling (see this, for example) and note the negative reaction to the photo from a number of commentators. So long as we frame it properly (i.e. by explaining the context and keeping it NPOV), inclusion of the photo adds to this section of the article in my opinion. I'll end my thoughts on this by noting that this is the only photo we mention in this section of the article, thus obviously it's not such a stretch to think that we would actually include it.
Incidentally, this story actually bounced back to Africa and resulted in protests in an ethnically Somali section of Kenya (see this Reuters story). Seems like an interesting tidbit perhaps worthy of mention in a quick sentence at the end of the paragraph.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
we need more outsiders here! I would love to hear you suggestions for how to "frame it properly (i.e. by explaining the context and keeping it NPOV)" because that is something causing a lot of edit warring here, so we need outside help. if you could put together some text that explains the facts of the pic and its interpretation, that would be a big help, for comparison's sake if nothing else. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 09:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Simply create a new article on the subject(?) --Justmeherenow (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
no current reporting = not notable outside of muslim rumors section 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Please source your argument. I argue
  • no current reporting ≠ not notable outside of Muslim rumors section
Proof?
  • no current reporting = /A/ and /B/, with /A/ = your unsourced criteria (ie your idiosyncratic standard that "pro" WP Delecionistas made up as a broad-brushed catch-all to delete events they don't like by affixing the label of "not historically notable." This can be checked by applying the formula to historical notable events in general and seeing if the definition is elegant. It's not.) and /B/ = ...even if it were a valid measure, even the most cursory Google search brings up umpteen media references, thus...a false contention in the first place. (Which shows this particular cabal aren't really trying to argue from the facts in any case?) --Justmeherenow (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The logical contortions that this page's Deletionista cabal must resort to in order for them to argue say this alleged smear and alleged leak of the photo--along with the photo allegedly, uh, so leaked--aren't deserving of encyclopedic coverage are really amazing to behold. I.e., what exactly would "no current reporting" be supposed to mean? Not in headlined articles on the subject featured above the fold on the front page of all the daily newspapers? Or not henceforth referenced in the media as an importantly historical event of the campaign? To propose the former criteria would be patently ridiculous. And to propose the latter? Why, we will be left with the leak-of-the-photograph-of-Obama-in-Somali-garb incident's extremely easily shown to be notable!
Here's one from less than an hour ago. "Then there was [HRC's] patently Republican-esque scare tactic of leaking pictures of Obama in traditional Somali garb to--to what? Imply that he is Muslim? To invoke fears that he will bring on an al-Qaeda lovefest?" --Justmeherenow (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
well considering that quote is clearly from an article discussing larger issues than just the somali pic, you have actually proved my point (thank you). You can't find recent reporting on the issue, and the most recent stuff you can find simply mentions the pic as part of larger analysis. Just like what we are doing oddly enough. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
<waves white flag> Truce! --Justmeherenow (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
First, thank you all for taking on this subject. And it's only the primary! Wow - what you have in store for you (better to shore up page policies now, I guess).
Anyhoo, I don't quite see what the point of the photo is. It could be useful in the context of an article directed toward insider-baseball political controversies or perhaps an article on patterns of media coverage etc., but I don't see what this has to do with Barack Obama in particular. It just doesn't seem to have any particular relevance. I'm sure every senator who's traveled has photos in tribal clothing. Fine. But you don't see those photos as a rule -- and certainly not in their wikipages. To post this for BHO's wikipage seems both wildly atypical and fraught with built-in baggage (given his ethnicity and that his father was Muslim). I just don't see the benefit of the image compared to the instant POV that accompanies it.
I'm an outsider here and first time contributor, so take my opinion for what it's worth. IMHO. --Scantron2 (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
prolly worth more than all of our's combined... thank god for outside editors lol. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Ignoring fair use issues for the moment, I'm actually rather inclined to support Bigtimepeace's view, in particular that "the picture is the story." Obviously we've decided this particular incident bears mention in the article. Obviously the incident revolves around a particular photo. Obviously we have the ability to show readers that photo in context, so that they can better understand said incident. Note the key, there: in context. This shouldn't just be thrown out there naked. We'll be accused of political grandstanding whether we include or exclude the photo -- why are we so afraid to let readers see the facts and decide on their own? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
absolutely no reporting on this in nearly month means... wait for it... drumroll please... its an undue weight violation, fer sure now 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Certainly an angle to consider. I'd been figuring "complete coverage is good coverage" if we're covering it at all. On the Barack Obama article, I'd probably agree with you right off, but this article has a far narrower scope and can go into greater detail. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note to editors of this page

All negative aspects of the Obama campaign will be removed as recentism. Please keep this in mind to prevent edit warring.--STX 19:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, one would hope that all positive things would be removed as well... --Bobblehead (rants) 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Argh! You took the bait, Bobblehead. Based on STX's past edits, his post here was intended as an attack. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh.. I'm aware of STX's position on the matter, but I am required to assume good faith, after all. One would hope that STX was not attempting to be WP:POINTy, since if he did not truly believe what he said, then he indeed would be acting in a manner that is disruptive to the community. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You'll also notice that I started my comment off with "If that is the case". --Bobblehead (rants) 20:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Then I shall join you in assuming good faith. However, I cannot join STX in keeping out properly sourced, relevant information as long as it is encyclopedic and adheres to Wikipedia guidelines, particulary those regarding WP:NPOV, WP:NOTE, and (within the realm of good advice) WP:Recentism. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

There are quite a few references in the article that are improperly formatted. Many of these use only a URI, causing horizontal scrollbar evilness in many instances. I am not particularly familiar with this article so I am requesting that its regular editors work to try to improve the references. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted BLP vio in heritage section

two of them actually. I know I have been saying this a lot lately, but to repeat for this "new" subject: BLP requires us to edit "conservatively, and with regard to privacy." I feel that that the now-reverted text which referred to obama as a possible "current" muslim, when the sources used there did not back up such an interpretation, is not conservative editing, nor does it properly respect the privacy of the person in question, a committed member of a different faith. second edit- removed second ref to "current muslim" status and manchurian candidate ref. for essentially the same reason. The sum total of the words I reverted was to make the page more inflammatory that absolutely necessary, a state which violates the "conservative editing" requirement of BLP. Also because BLP vio's are so dangerous to the ethos and functioning of WP, consensus IS REQUIRED ON TALK before re-adding any possibly BLP violating material (according to regulation). Thanks for your comments!72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

referred to BLP noticeboard as of 03-15 here, though there has yet to be any subsequent questionable activity... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
reverted similar text by same editor after two weeks of consensus72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
and from WP:Words to Avoid
"It's often a good idea to avoid terms that appear biased or may be perceived so by some notable group, even if technically they aren't. A more neutral wording is preferable and can be found by careful thought. Often an easy way to do this is to describe rather than label"
andy, third parties have edited the text and have kept the consensus version that you disagree with. your version violates an entire clause of "words to avoid" so I really think this discussion is over. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] martin as a source

I was under the impression we can't use (free republic) it because its a blog or something similar. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. Free Republic is not a reliable source. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually 72etc is incorrect. FreeRepublic is not a WP:RS for factual assertions, but we can "use" it (consult it for its content) when it is a primary source referred to by a secondary RS. For the third time, the relevant policy reads:

To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

  • only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
  • make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.
Andyvphil (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Andy, this is not a primary source. It's a reprint of a secondary source and because of that, FreeRepublic is not a reliable source that can be used. If you absolutely have to use the source, then perhaps you should use [6]. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I also noticed you forgot to include the second sentence of the Primary sources bullet which states, "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." FreeRepublic is only a reliable source when used in regards to FreeRepublic and does not meet the requirements for being used as a reliable source for even primary sources in articles that are not about FreeRepublic.--Bobblehead (rants) 17:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No, the Nation article is the secondary source, and the FreeRepublic's reprinting of Martin's press release is a primary-source-referred-to-in-a-secondary-source in this context. We could not rely on the accuracy of the FreeRepblic reprint for any controversial assertion about what Martin said, but since there is no such controversy I would be comfortable relying on it for that, if no better cite could be found. But since you have found a better cite, I will use it the next time I un-weasel 72etc's text. Thank you. Andyvphil (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremiah Wright Controversy

Please do not delete this section again without discussing your reasons first. It is a significantly shorter section than the NAFTA leak section, even though it has gotten at least as much coverage, if not more. The statements by Wright are what is controversial, so that is why they are listed here. Obama's response is included as well. Paisan30 (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a major story which resulted in Obama giving a 37-minute speech in Pennsylvania. It is no longer just part of the "media's coverage of Obama's religion". PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THE SECTION AGAIN without discussing. The section is NPOV and covers both the controversial comments and Obama's reaction. Paisan30 (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to make bad changes to the article, at least do them right. You are inadvertently duplicating big sections of the article. johnpseudo 23:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I know, I fixed it. I'm not sure what's bad about the changes, as you didn't address my comments. It's a major story in the campaign, and it has become much more about race than about coverage of Obama's religion. That whole section is chiefly about the Muslim rumors. Paisan30 (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Eh, it's not so bad- I sort of assumed it was before I looked at it. johnpseudo 23:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I hate to keep posting in this section, and I have yet to ever lose my WP:COOL on a Talk page... BUT... Please stop deleting the Wright section without discussing it. The section is about Rev. Wright and the controversy his remarks have caused in the campaign. Senator Obama gave a 37-minute speech in response to the issue. It is NOT just a part of the false rumors about Obama being a Muslim - which is covered in the "Coverage of Obama's religion..." section. Paisan30 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


I have been wondering what Rev. Wright believed, because none of the video clips I saw actually discussed his theology. According to this article, Rev. Wright has identified seminary professor James Cone as the theologian he identifies with. Readers may be interested in understanding "black liberation theology." [7] RonCram (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Not appropriate for this article. I have not read the link you posted, but it may be suitable for the article on Rev. Wright. Paisan30 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm the one who keeps moving it (not deleting it fyi). You need to make some sort of argument for why it needs its own section. Generally religious topics should be in the religion section, right? You say it is "more about race than about coverage of Obama's religion"- but I don't know thats true and you need to make an argument around that and not just say it. Again considering we already have a long-standing section on this topic, I think you need to argue why this particular religious topic is more notable than the others, to the point where it gets its own section, and not even in the same part of the page as the rest, but in an entirely new location too. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I did. Obama did not make a long, major speech in response to any of the rumors that he is a Muslim. The Wright controversy is unrelated to the rumors, and it is really unrelated to his religion. Wright is a Christian minister. There is nothing controversial about that. His incendiary statements about race and politics are what has caused the uproar. Paisan30 (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, Wright's military service is irrelevant to the controversy. Obama's relationship with him was as a pastor, not as a Marine or any other occupations Wright has had. Paisan30 (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
you saying things, does not make them true, sorry. Because we are using separate headers, there is no connection to the muslim thing, so stop bringing it up. Your sole argument is that Rev. Wright and his statements, are somehow NOT mainly religious topics- which considering the facts (wright is obama's former pastor) seems WRONG to me. Something tells me you just want it higher on page, prior formatting and organizational principles be damned. Which again, sorry, is not the way to edit an encyclopedia. Maybe the way to keep controversies going though lol. You have yet to provide anything but your own claims, that this section is somehow different, and needs to be set aside. yes its different then the ret of the subject matter in that section, but I don't think difference is a valid enough reason for non-use of established consensus formatting. Please back-up your claim that "this is more a race question that a religion question" because that is the only grounds I will consider these changes, if you make an argument for it and stop simply saying it like fact. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Did you see Obama's speech, responding to the controversy? It was about race in America - not about religion at all. Yes, he briefly mentioned that Wright was a religious leader, but the controversy, and Obama's response, had nothing to do with Wright's religious beliefs or practices. It has everything to do with his racial and political statements. I am not aware of any theological declarations he has made that have caused a negative reaction from the press or the public. I am also not aware of any other issues which have caused Obama to respond with a major speech. It is at least as significant as the NAFTA thing, which has not gotten close to the coverage and attention that the Wright story has received. Paisan30 (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I would argue those inflammatory comments from wright are exactly theological declarations, made during sermons no less. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Everything said during a sermon is not about religion. Obama himself recognized that the issue is about race, which is why race was the centerpiece of his "More Perfect Union" speech. There were maybe two or three lines in the entire speech referring to Wright's religious teachings. While the speech is not the entire story, the candidate knows better than anyone what he needed to address... and it was not the Reverend's thoughts on Christianity. Paisan30 (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

look at what you're saying for a second. I know its tough to get caught up in the moment and want to make your point, but I really think your claim of "everything said during a sermon is not about religion" is open to wide interpretation. Again think about the argument you are making. When a divinity-school educated pastor steps down from his church because of sermons he made, its a religious event even if occurs during the primary campaign. True obama's speech was more about race but that does not mean the controversy as a whole follows suit. Again I feel its something certain demographics wish were true, but thats a bit different. Please keep in mind we already have a solid section set-up for this very reason, and If you want to use "extra-ordinary" formatting you need to make an "extraordinary" case which I have yet to see. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who is 76.214.211.56 ?

I finally took a look at the "Jeremiah Wright" section here, and found it did not cover in NPOV fashion the main question about Obama's relationship to Wright, since he agrees that Wright's remarks have been "apalling": when did he find this out and why did he take so long to do anything about it. So I imported the relevant material from the main bio article...and was reverted three times by an obvious sock, 76.214.211.56, with no edits on Wikipedia other than these reverts. Obvious because his edit comment each time, "Revert POV-pushing by Andyvphil per WP:SOAP" was not that of a first time editor. And he refused to identify himself. Wordbuilder also reverted, with the comment "If you suspect a sock, request a checksum. Otherwise, WP:AGF" which is nonsense, since AGF does not require that I ignore the fact that the experienced editor hiding behind 76.214.211.56 has refused to identify himself. And if he's Wordbuilder, he is guilty of a 3RR violation as well. Time for me to crash, but I would appreciate another editor filing the checksum, sockpuppet & possible-3RR requests. Thanks in advance. Andyvphil (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

as usual consensus is against andy- he gets rv-ed by two different editor's and somehow thinks its their fault and that they are socks. did you ever consider that maybe people just don't agree with the terms you use? because this happens constantly and you always say the same thing. I mean I guess its good to get a list of all the BS anti-consensus arguments that people come up with... but I just hope you realize that the more do stuff like this andy (make user accusation on talk, and use talk as advocacy forum), the stronger the case becomes for your next block. like its not a question of "if" but a question of "when" at this point. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I (deliberately, in order to be impartial) haven't read the text in question so I won't comment on whether it should or should not be in the article in the way that you describe, but I'd just like to point out that in certain BLP situations the 3RR rule does not apply. For example, if editor A adds content that editor B feels is not consistent with BLP convention (e.g. content consisting of contentious, nuanced opinion) then editor B is within his rights to continue to revert it beyond 3RR. This is due to the higher standard to which BLP articles are held.
However, the above definitely doesn't excuse the fact that creating sock puppets in order to get around editing limitations - whether real or perceived - is a huge no-no. I don't think there's any reasonable justification for that kind of activity and I'm disheartened that 72.0.180.2's response above simply attacks Andyvphil without any recognition of this. You may not agree with his edits or his opinion about what should be on this page, 72, but surely you can see that he's right on this particular issue, can't you? -- Hux (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess you haven't read the history page either then lol! You will find the IP rv-ed andy AND THEN after the IP bumped up against 3rr, the registered user started rv-ing andy too. So call it what you will but it doesn't fall under the "normal" sock pattern. Also if you're really interested in talking about editor collusion, we could talk about why the first time you post on this page in a week, it is to defend andy on an issue again even though otherwise you make no content or talk contributions. Seriously I don't care but you have to realize that the bar is pretty high for sockpuppet claims, and the fact that Andy had all these concerns, but was "too tired" to follow up on them might give you some insight as to their real priority72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
"You will find the IP rv-ed andy AND THEN after the IP bumped up against 3rr, the registered user started rv-ing andy too" - I fail to see the relevance of the registered user in question. Nobody knows who 76.214.211.56 is except the person posting from that address and I'm making no assumptions as to who it might be.
"if you're really interested in talking about editor collusion" - I didn't say nor did I even remotely imply anything about "editor collusion". Please stop making assumptions.
"it is to defend andy on an issue" - Er, I'm neither defending nor supporting Andyvphil. In fact, if you bother to actually read what I wrote above instead of heading off down irrelevant tangents (seriously, posting frequency? WTF?), I criticized his 3RR argument.
Why do you feel the need to be so combative all the time? -- Hux (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, Hux, you can look at the edits now. No BLP concerns, right? And the fact that I have to be at work 38 min from now may have something to do why I haven't requested checkuser, etc. 76.214.211.56 (Woodstock, IL [8])still has no "contributions" other than the 3 reverts between 14:41 and 15:29, 19 March 2008, and Wordbuilder edited at 14:00 and 15:33, so I'm going to ask for a check. But not until tomorrow morning. Or I'd appreciate someone else asking. Andyvphil (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Requested checkuser.[9] Andyvphil (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
My IP is 70.56.143.113. Even though I'm in New Mexico, that traces to Denver, Colorado since Qwest is my ISP. By the way, do you think if I was guilty of sockpuppet-like activity, I would have encouraged you to request a checkuser in the first place? →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
so are most US ip's in the 70's range? so is mine and I am not on qwest (good lord no) either. anyhoo, andy, a couple more of these and we can report you for wikilawyering so keep up the "good" work lol. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
76.214.211.56 is a sock. The only question is, whose. The checkuser request is under Wordbuilder's name rather than 76.214.211.56 only because the reporting template required it be under the name of some suspected user, whereas what we have here is a known sock and a variety of suspects. I accept Wordbuilder's denial, but only an actual checkuser identifying someone else can exonerate him. Andyvphil (talk) 09:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
<panic> 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I realize that Wikipedia isn't a court of law and thankfully so! What if our legal system worked this way, "You've been charged with murder. The only way to be exonerated is if we can convict someone else." Panic indeed! That said, court of law or not, this kind of attitude doesn't seem to be assuming good faith. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Your confusing trial with investigation. I asked for investigation and it was conducted far enough to exonerate you. That's OK by me. I only want the sock operator identified, and if that's not you then my quarrel is not with you. I already said that. Andyvphil (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Andyvphil: While the IP address is clearly a sock that doesn't implicitly mean that action should be taken - not all sock puppetry is against the rules. It may turn out that this is a registered user who simply didn't log in, reverted you three times and then stopped. If that's the case then there's no problem and you need to admit you made a mistake. If this sock turns out to have been used to evade 3RR then it is possible that something needs to be done about it. However, as I said before, 3RR can sometimes be ignored in BLP situations so there still may be no issue here. -- Hux (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
If the established editor behind the sockpuppet made no reverts to this article within 24 hours then, indeed, no action should be taken against him. I've said as much at the checkuser request. But if he did he should be warned or blocked. Finding out is exactly what checkuser is for. See checkuser "acceptable request" type E. BLP exemptions from 3RR are to be "narrowly construed...it is only in the clearest cases that they will be considered exceptions to the rule" (see [10]). Come on, you can look, now. Is this a "clearest case" of BLP vio? Looks like unwelcome NPOV to me. Andyvphil (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rev. Wright military service

(continued from user talk pages)

Reverted change to Obama campaign article

I've reverted your addition to the Obama campaign article that Rev Wright was a Marine/Navy corpsman prior to being a pastor.[1] Wright's occupation prior to being a pastor is not really applicable to the controversy and if anyone is interested in learning more about Wright, they are more than welcome to click on the link and go to his article. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I argue that that the treatment of wright in that section is fairly one-sided. It is deifinitely an attempt to marginalize wright and add implied POV to his biography. I think considering one of the major lines of attack is that wright said "god damn america" - it is totally notable to make clear that this comes from some one who served his country in two separate branches of the armed forces. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Wrights history as a pastor is entirely applicable to the article, because that is where he has had his influence on Obama, but his bio prior to that is not notable unless you can find a source that makes it applicable. Simply saying that he was a Marine and then a Navy Corpsman and sourcing it to his bio on the church's website is simply not applicable because, oddly enough, for the exact reason that you say is why it should be included, it adds a bias to the article. It shouldn't be that hard to find a reliable source that counters the Wright is anti-American with his military experience. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
cont'd now
ok here is the source from the chicago tribune,(http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/religion/chi-070121-relig_wright,1,271630.story), but I won't add that yet because we both know this isn't a source issue. The issue is: you saying that the article in its current form, treats Rev. Wright in npov fashion, with proper weight to both criticism and positive effect . Say that with a straight face please Bobblehead, because that seem to be your only rationale for saying that my approx. six-word edit, would unbalance the FOUR paragraphs we currently have on this general topic (which as you well know has had other POV tendencies from day one). 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Put Wright's biography on Wright's page. This article is about the Barack Obama campaign. Wright is having an impact on the campaign because of his ties to Obama and his comments, so that is what needs to be mentioned here. Paisan30 (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, Wright's bio is linked on this page. If people want to know about Jeremiah Wright, they can click on that. This article is about the presidential campaign. We do not include biographical information about everyone mentioned on this page, and Wright's military service is not relevant to the story. Paisan30 (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
your refusal to compromise on three separate options, shows your motivations. What do expect me to say? I have a cite and a valid argument- and its more that just a bio issue its an undue weight issue- if we are going to present wright we need to do it fairly, under BLP requirements. This is not some crazy preacher obama has totally disowned- this is a man with a track record of service to his nation and his city, and obama is standing by him. Especially when, for the umteenth time, if we are going to include statements of questionable patriotism from wright, we ARE UNDER OBLIGATION to present the context of wright's patriotism fairly and npov. Which I really feel an extremely short phrase concerning his military service is totally applicable. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The compromise is to leave Wright's biographical information on Wright's page. And who said that Wright's statments are unpatriotic? The article simply reports what he said. I did not include any language that suggests his quotes are unpatriotic at all. Incidentally, Obama himself did say on CNN that the remarks were unpatriotic. I'm not sure if you want to include that in this article, though. Paisan30 (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
what I want to include is just one phrase of context, out the multitude of paragraphs we are currently graced with. Yes if Obama is truly the only person calling wright unpatriotic then lets include it, but something tells me there are others, and as YOU have even tacitly accepted at this point that discussion of wright's patriotism requires balance, I think that is another strong argument for inclusion. from you no less. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, now both phrases are included. I do not accept that Wright's patriotism ever needed to be mentioned in this article. Apparently you feel that his military service is evidence that he's patriotic, so maybe others think that as well. That being the case, we should include the fact that Senator Obama said that his remarks were unpatriotic. Paisan30 (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the "Navy corpsman" business. It's improbable that Wright joined both the Navy and the Marines, and neither source says so. And I have no idea where "corpsman" came from -- it's in neither source. Obama says he was a Marine, the Trib says he joined the Navy. He's been close to Obama for up to 23 years, so I believe Obama. The Trib reporter probably heard something about his being on a Navy ship and didn't realize that that didn't mean he was in the Navy. Andyvphil (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
the navy/marine thing is from the TUCC bio page, which says he joined the marines and then transferred to the navy. Corpsman is simply a term (I thought people knew) which means military medical personnel. However that don't roll off the tongue as quaintly so I used, true, a term not actually from the cite. I think we should use both and use the TUCC bio, if Paisan30 might accept that now as a ref. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
"Medic" or "Medical corpsman" would be clearer than "corpsman". If you want to use info from the TUCC page you have to cite the TUCC page. Obama cited his service in the Marines as evidence of his patriotism, and I don't see a reason to go beyond that in maintext, once the point is made. Linking to the bio is fine by me -- the purpose of links is to encourage exploration, not merely to support current wording, as I said recently on this page or the bio's talk, I disremember which. Andyvphil (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I would agree "medic" is clearer but (I think) that the medic is a term only used by army and airforce, where navy and marines use corpsman. I would be ready to simply use "navy medic" even if its not technically correct, in the interest of easy understanding... as far as navy and marines go, I don't care what we say, I just wanted a ref. to wright't military service. What branch is pretty secondary. However from what I have read, he was barely in the marines, so perhaps if we don't use both we should emphasize the navy end of things. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Just a note here.. The US Navy provides the medical personnel for both the Marine Corps and the Navy. In the case of Wright, it seems that he started out as a Marine, but then transfered to the Navy where he became a Hospital Corpsman, but it appears that he was not a "Field Medical Service Technician" - the type is associate with the person that comes running through gunfire when a Marine is wounded in combat - but rather worked on shore as a cardiopulmonary tech. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Typical White Person statement?

Should Obamas statement concerning his white grandmother be mentioned in this article? It has been mentioned on Fox News, MSNBC and Larry King Live.

Obama on WIP:

"The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, there's a reaction that's been bred into our experiences that don't go away, and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society." [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.206.166 (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not just his grandmother. Jesse Jackson, for instance. As Ann Coulter noted in her "Throws Grandmother Under the Train" piece. His maternal grandmother raised him in Hawaii, after he came back from Indonesia. Isn't she mentioned? Andyvphil (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
getting a little long, so brought back down to proper weight, per recentism and the rest... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page Protection / Goofy Cites

so Paisan30, next time you think "Anonymous editors (one or two in particular) keep editing without discussion." please BRING IT UP on talk before requesting protection of the page. Some of those asshole IPs actually do good work once in a while, and I think maybe you would be surprised to know how long some of them have been editing on these pages. PS- if you're so worried about vandalism, your effort might be better spent watching (andyvphil), than me. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggest you come up with a diff of an edit by me that you wish to characterize as "vandalism". Otherwise you're just lying, again. Andyvphil (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't noticed whether Anydvphil is committing vandalism. If I notice it, I'll respond to it. I didn't really think you were committing vandalism either - just adding stuff that I didn't think was necessary to the article. Paisan30 (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
so you join the long list of editors who end up getting into edit wars with me, and then we come to a resolution lol. what a strange way to do business. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess so. In other news, does anyone know what's wrong with the footnotes? The wires are crossed somewhere. It starts around footnote 5... for example, click on number 18 and you go to footnote 15. Weird. I'm probably missing something, but I'm on only a couple hours of sleep. Paisan30 (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I really want to blame it on the Anne Korblut NYT cite. I have deleted different cites, but it still seems to involve that cite. However deleting the kornblut cite also has no effect on the problem. So I don't know either 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
it is fixed up to cite 101 now, but THAT one now refers back to 75... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I fixed it and then I broke it again. 75 used to be the problem, but now that one is fine and all the ones around it don't work. I have no idea what the problem is other than we have WAY TOO many cites in general. I give up for now. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Sheesh.. I have no idea what's going on.. Every time I refresh the page the problem starts at a different location... Sounds like a job for the WP:VPT. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA nom on hold

GA review (see here for criteria)

First of all, a disclaimer: I am a Barack Obama supporter. However, I do not believe this impacts my ability to review this article. If anyone feels that I should not do so, you may request that I not review the article and I will be more than happy to defer this to another editor. With that out of the way, let's get to work! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    No prose issues, but I have some layout concerns I would like to address. I'll do so in the scale/scope portion of this review.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Here's where we begin to run into issues. There are numerous citations that are not even written out properly but instead consist of just a web address. I will not promote this article until all citations are properly written out. Furthermore, there are four endorsements in the Endorsements section without any citation. Find those, please.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    These are fine, but I need a section of this review to address the article's structure and this looks like as good a place as any. Please take a look at both the Biden campaign and Dodd campaign articles and note how they have structured their articles. Biden's campaign goes by fiscal quarter, while Dodd's goes by month. I would like to see something similar here, since there are issues of undue weight given towards more recent events as compared to more distant events. Since this is likely just a matter of shuffling things around I won't fail the article in a prose or scope aspect, but I would like to see it discussed and implemented.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No bias issues.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    The article is stable in that there are no meaningful edit wars. Since it's an ongoing election, it's not exactly a rock in the storm, but hey, nobody's perfect.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Great pictures.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Please address the issues I have described. If you have any questions, seek any clarifications, or wish to notify me when you've implemented my suggestions, please contact me! Good luck! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article help needed

It seems the only problem we have to fix is proper citing of references. There is a lot of these that need to be fixed, so we're going to need help from everyone to get this done. I would have no problem doing this all myself but if you check out the references section there is probably over 100 that need fixed. Thanks for any contributions to fixing this issue. HoosierStateTalk 22:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a tool that can help. If you use it, be sure to remove any unused fields before saving. --HailFire (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


Comment I agree that this is a good article, and very useful to many readers. However I have a couple of problems with WP naming it a "Wikipedia Good Article", which are supposed to be articles that represent the best of WP. This is not really an encyclopedia article, but an ongoing report on current events. (No problem with it being on WP, but I would think that WP Good Articles should be examples of good encyclopedia articles.) An encyclopedia article on the campaign should really wait to be written after the election and probably after Obama leaves office. I also have a problem that WP will be seen as partisian if it highlights ongoing politicial events. Of course I would have the same objections if Clinton's or McCain's campaign articles were nominated. Redddogg (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I was confusing a "WP Good Article" with a "WP Featured Article." Most of my objection was to it being "featured" on the main page. I don't have as much problem with it being merely named a "good" article. Redddogg (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image display problem?

For some reason, the image under the "First half 2007" section isn't displaying correctly for me. I tried to fiddle with the formatting, and every time it worked in "Show preview" but didn't display in the actual article. I'm seeing the wikicode instead of the image: do other folks have this problem?

I'm wondering whether the problem is that the image's name contains a double .jpg suffix: it's named Image:Obama at UNLV Health care forum.jpg.jpg. I don't know enough about the workings behind image syntax to know whether the ".jpg.jpg" in the image's name could cause problems. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... it's displaying fine now. No idea what the problem was. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Texas in intro

Does the phrase "winning Texas" in the introductory paragraph need further explication? As we know (and as the article says later), Obama won the Texas caucuses but lost the primary. He ended up with more Texas delegates (in part because of the complex way the state apportions delegates), so in that sense it's accurate to say that he won Texas. But I can imagine a Clinton supporter arguing the point of who "really" won Texas. Should the Texas line in the intro be worded differently, to avoid the appearance of POV-pushing? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

considering the entire race has been viewed in the context of delegates, at least since 08 began, I think it might be appropriate to wait until such a time as the popular vote actually does become a factor again, to make this clarification. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like my prediction came true. [12]. Trying for a neutral wording. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
well we have not been using the Popular vote as the main yardstick for months, since Nevada probably (where the two were first divergent). Yes it subject to some discussion, but not until there is some change to what has so far appeared to be a steady trend, no the popular vote is not "an issue" to the point were we should be discussing it in the lede, where the primary concern is clarity.
to wit: to make even the popular vote close, and there for an issue for the lede on this page, HRC has to get a big pop. vote margin in Penn., and if she does that, she will also get a big delegate margin, which will be be notable even using the delegate-style we are currently using. So it will get added at the same time no matter what standard we use- and considering so far we have been using a consistent format for months, and considering this is how the Democratic party actually nominates (delegates and superdelegates), I see no reason to muddy the lead for your reason. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm just the middle-man here — I put the "mud" in because someone else had moved Texas from the "win" to the "lose" category. I suppose that the RCP citation should have been enough to take care of that, though. /shrug/ —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, had the rules for what constitutes "winning" been different in Texas, Clinton would have won. However, using the official rules (two thirds primary/one third caucuses), Obama won. Same applies to the national contest. johnpseudo 23:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] martin quote still

so I am getting a little nervous here. myself and two other regular editors had reached a consensus on that text, adding new cites and tightening, etc. Then when I log on again, all this consensus had been reverted, whole cloth, to an earlier version which has several errors, error which the adding editor was well-aware of before his edit. For example, I don't think changing a cite from a free NYT news article, to a blog website, is acceptable editing. I also question the removal of a quote from the NYT article. And finally re-adding inflammatory text. I have (at last) received a good explanation for why WTA does not apply to the martin quote, but surely WTA still applies to the rest of the paragraph? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't easily tell what you're talking about without diffs. Andyvphil (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] rev wright issue has peaked

I am cross posting this to Obama, and Obama Campaign 08.

Now that Obama has polled ahead of clinton for two days in a row, after being behind her during the time of the wright issue, I would like to advocate that new progress on it has ceased, new first-tier reporting on it has ceased, and it is receding into historical background. So it is time for editors to stop adding material on it, until such time as something new happens in the issue. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone had written that Wright had quoted Peck and this had been taken out of context. As if the problem with Wright in this instance were an innocent quote of Peck, not his blame-America-first approving elaboration on the text he apparently took from Peck. So I gave him a best-case treatment before mentioning the opposing POV.[1] It's called NPOV. Try it sometimes. Anyway, the Wright business totally undermines Obama's pose as the Democratic Party's equivalent of Colin Powell, and the voters lost are not primarily those waffling between Obama and Clinton. We'll find out if it's worn off if and when he and McCain go head to head. Obama used to have a lead in that contest. Andyvphil (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

in february he led, not so much in march...72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Fail

I'm sorry, but this article has to be failed as a GA nomination as a clear violation of quick fail criterion #5: "The article specifically addresses a currently unfolding event with a definite endpoint." This is an ongoing presidential campaign which will have a definite endpoint, Election Day 2008. As such this can't be a Good Article at this time. Otto4711 (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merrill McPeak

People with expertise on sources and references on the people associated with this campaign are welcome to look at the above article. It's currently in sorry shape. I'll work on it myself, but I'm more an expert on the military side than the political side. Nesodak (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section titles

129.116.12.33 seems to think that the sections currently titled "Coverage" should be renamed "Controversy", and claims these are how sections like this are titled in other related articles. Not only is that false, but the McCain and Clinton articles don't have similar sections, whatsoever. Please don't make this edit again. Grsz 11 05:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I think "Coverage of Obama's childhood and heritage" is appropriate because there isn't anything controversial about it, I am not so sure about "Coverage of Obama's church and former pastor" to be perfectly honest. The fact is that it is a controversy. Jeremiah Wright is a controversial figure, and Barack Obama's association with him remains a point of controversy. Since this particular sub-section covers the controversy surrounding his relationship with Wright (rather than his association with Trinity, which is not controversial), I feel a more appropriate title would be "Controversy involving Obama's former pastor" or something of that ilk. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
There are plenty of controversy sections (or even entire articles) entitled "controversy" in articles about other politicians. E.g. John Kerry military service controversy and George W. Bush military service controversy. --Dr.enh (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Since the controversy does not involve his church or religion, but rather the comments made by Jeremiah Wright specifically, it seemed appropriate to rename the section "Jeremiah Wright controversy". This is consistent with similar sections in the campaign articles of other candidates. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to keep a religious association to it- as I think it is, and I have seen attempts to push the story in "other" directions to put it delicately. So "Controversy surrounding former pastor" I think would be ideal because we use his name in the sentence afterwards, and two "rev. Wrights" so close together might be a bit clunky. But I'm sure someone out there will prefer wording like "hate Church" (lol) so any basic summary header will surely be fine even if it uses the word controversy (but not the word professor) 72.0.180.2 (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you imagine anyone accusing Oprah of attending a "hate church" as vigorously as people do with Obama? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article size

This article is getting quite long, as well as the Barack Obama page, probably because of the amount of material on this topic. It might make sense to start summarizing this article and moving the content to new articles. Yahel Guhan 04:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refimprove tag

I have tagged this article with "refimprove" because I see far too many blogs being cited as references. Blogs are acceptable references when the blog is owned by an article's subject. It's okay to use blogs as a source of quotations for the blog author's opinions, but in this article blogs are used to cite various quantitative facts such as polling popularity, and that's wrong.

I'd like to see the blog citations go away. These citations will eventually start getting replaced by "fact" tags, after which the tagged sentences will be deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

most of those are news site blogs, which have been considered RS throughout the campaign (ask wasted time R). I think a better solution would be to immediately start fact tagging the individual sentence you feel aren't verified. I am removing the top header.
also after a very quick glance at the cites, I can't say I agree with you anyways. The first column seems to be almost all news organizations at least. We have heard before that the endorsement cites are the least reputable- is that what you are talking about? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I see a few blog citations that aren't news organizations. You're right, most are news sites. I agree it's probably best to delete the other blog citations and add fact tags. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to fix the problem with the size of this huge article

I think we should follow WP:SUMMARY, and create 3 new articles based on the content presented within this article, and summarize this article.

I propose we create the following articles:

  1. The "Campaign developments" section should be moved to Development of the Barack Obama campaign, and summarized.
  2. The "Caucuses and primaries 2008" section should be merged into Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries (as well as the similar section on Clinton's campaign article).
  3. The "Coverage of Obama's religion during the campaign" section should be moved to its own title, entitled Coverage of Obama's religion during the campaign.

I have proposed a similar proposal for the Hillary Clinton campaign article as well. Any thoughts? Yahel Guhan 06:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I am worried that the "development of campaign" page might not get developed and will sort of be ignored.
  • I like your idea of how to handle the results section- but I think it may be too early to pull that off, it might be better to leave as is, or create TWO new pages and let them content fork, until one senator is out of the race and we can effectively merge.
  • coverage of religion should not get its own page- that is undue weight; both main thrusts in that section are possible long-term recentism edits waiting to happen. Yes they need space but I doubt they will have as much space as they do in five to ten years. Not to mention the muslim thing is basically all based on rumors (even if we are reporting on the reporting of these rumors). also the rev wright thing has its own page (the speech page) so again we would basically be making a new page for the sake of carrying the muslim rumor section. Thats not going to happen.
  • If I suggested three sections, it would be: Obama campaign results, Obama campaign demographics, Obama political connections.
  • If not that perhaps, Obama Campaign timeline, Obama's personal relationships, and Obama Campaign positions.
anyways I think we should put in some effort, if we split, into splitting up the main "contentious" points as well, so each page has about the same level of stability vs. controversy etc. Perhaps that is a goal too lofty, but imagine if president kennedy had looked at the moon, and said "no that's too far"... (lol) 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think merging into Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries is a good idea. That article is a statistically-focused one that just describes, as its name suggests, results. And does a good job of it, from what I've seen. The "Caucuses and primaries 2008" sections of this article and Hillary's campaign article have a little overlap with that, but not much. Instead, these sections are about campaign developments, polls, trends, speeches, charges back and forth between the campaigns, staff shakeups, and so forth — the narrative of the campaign. This would totally mess up the Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries article if we moved it all there. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. By consensus on that page, Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries is for warehousing numerical data only. It is a sub-article of the main article Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. The main article already contains a "Chronicle" of campaign events, which includes the most important information from the campaign narratives on both the Obama and Clinton campaign articles and provides an overview of key events in the race. There also concerns about length on those articles, and we are trying to keep the "Chronicle" section of Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 trim. Merging more information into either of those two articles is not a good idea. Instead, I would suggest trimming the narrative sections on the Obama and Clinton campaign articles and, if necessary, creating further sub-articles. The Obama campaign article currently has a lot of information about Clinton's campaign and vice versa. Some of this is necessary, of course; but we may be able to cut some of it back, so that in the end, Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 provides a narrative of the nomination race as a whole, while the two candidate articles focus more on internal developments within the campaigns, such as fundraising, staff changes, individual speeches, etc., as well as focusing on how the state results affected each candidate's campaign arc. Also, we may want to simply condense or cut some information, bearing in mind WP:NOT#NEWS.Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is an appropriate summary size for the Jeremiah Wright section now?

I feel that unless we find some compromise between the previous large size and the current one-paragraph version by Grsz11, we'll be violating WP:POVFORK. Any thoughts? johnpseudo 22:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

you should check out the various discussions at the new page- it has been both merge tagged and delete tagged in the past 24 hrs, so perhaps the text will come back here at some point... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April developments?

I removed this section simply because it reflects something that happens in campaigns on a regular basis: candidates attacking other candidates in hopes that some media will pick it up and make it stick. You know, the "throw enough mud and some will stick" philosophy. The "elitism" tag by McCain is just that; a little more mud. If it is important enough, the reporting will continue; if not it is just a blip on the screen and should not be in the article. We have had this discussion before:

"actually if any of the three of you did your homework you would have seen that there is a long-standing situation with new users not knowing what "recentism" means and trying to add whatever random thing is being spun that day or week. If it has legs, don't worry it will get mentioned . . . either way it will need consistent reporting for a week or more before it will even be considered. and let me tell you the two users you three are starting trouble with are much faster with their rv-buttons than you will ever be." 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Marylandstater (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have no problem including Obama's "bitter" remarks so long as it was not described as a blunder or damaging to his campaign or that it proves he is a so called "elitist". I think the remarks he made were fine and he should not even have said they were phrased poorly. The media is siding with McCain and Hillary on this issue which is absurd but I have no problem with a mention of Obama's remarks. JonErber (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this is a notable event in the campaign. There's no need to mention how any of the opposing campaigns have reacted. Simply providing the quote would be sufficient. Additionally, Obama subsequently said that he didn't choose his words well, but added: "I said something that everybody knows is true." Finnegan, Michael. “Obama expresses regret for remarks on small towns”, Los Angeles Times (2008-04-13). I'll edit accordingly, taking out the "elitism" charge.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have included information on the 2004 interview he made where he said similiar stuff to provide more context.

Mpondopondo (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, guys. NPOV means that other POVs than your own get a place on the page. Obama was condescending to suggest that the yahoos in PA "cling' to religion and guns" only because they're too stoopid to realize that their real problems are economic.[14][15] Maybe they like guns and religion because they like shooting and are religious, just like the working class white folks he condescended to in his race speech don't like affirmative action and welfare because they don't feel they owe anybody anything, not because they have a false conciousness.[16] This POV, expressed in "how... the opposing campaigns have reacted" and otherwise, can't be excluded. And won't be, I promise.Andyvphil (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it is fair to say that when you read the transcript of what he said that he intended no slight to the people he was talking about. I suppose that if you take a "soundbite" out of that transcript, spray it all over the media, rinse and repeat, then perhaps the most Republican or racist or simple folk among us might think he was being an elitist. The guy was talking about how he understood their frustrations, and he's getting reamed for some awkward phrasing. And all because of the press release spoon-fed to the media by Clinton. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Read this one. Fellow liberal. Maybe you'll get it.[17] Andyvphil (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
...oh, and Clinton's tin ear was evident on this one too. She was the one who concentrated on "bitter" before Obama eagerly agreed to make that the focus of the controversy. She was also very resistant to nailing Obama on Wright. They're too alike for her to recognize and exploit his faults, and she may be toast as a result. Andyvphil (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Just came across this page and was embarrassed to see that the controversy over Obama's "bitter" remarks were barely mentioned. I appreciate the fact that Obama supporters want to close the door on the issue, but this is an encyclopedia, not CBS News. Covering up such a massive story is as bad as fabricating one. I suggest the editors of this page do some serious rethinking of the message such a cover-up sends. It's a bit shamefully biased when Wikipedia won't even call his remarks what they are. Don't label them disrespectful, or arrogant, or elitist... but at the very least call them controversial. 138.23.2.34 (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Got an email from Gallup to say Clinton had finally retaken a lead in the daily tracking and came here to find that in this la-la land Obama still had double digits. Fixed that a bit, but the "Comments about small towns" section is truly an embarassment. The remarks are quoted, Obama apologizes, more pro-Obama "context" is supplied, Axelrod accuses Bill Clinton of doing it too. That's it. Not even a clue as to why "Obama subsequently said that he did not choose his words well" or that there's been any effect of his remarks being "widely reported". No time now, but I'll be back. Andyvphil (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You need to achieve consensus before you can claim consensus has been achieved

Concerning User:Scjessey's edit summary comment "rv back to agreed-upon consensus wording": I've checked the talk page and the archive, and not only is there no consensus shown regarding the term "soundbite" or the phrase "which placed Wright's anger in a larger historical context", both of which I removed in my edit, but there was never even any discussion of this wording. If you have a good reason to revert my changes, that's fine, but don't claim that consensus has been achieved when it hasn't.

In terms of the specifics here, my problem with these phrases are that (1) "soundbite" is a loaded term which can signify unprofessionalism on the part of the reporter or unfairness to the person being excerpted, while the term "excerpt" serves the same basic purpose without being pejorative; and (2) claiming that Obama's speech "placed Wright's anger in a larger historical context" constitutes interpretation beyond that of the cited sources, and is therefore original research. I would like to reinstate my changes, but I am willing to solicit opinions from other editors first to determine if there's a better way to resolve tehse issues. --DachannienTalkContrib 00:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a carry-over from Barack Obama. You will find the same paragraph in that article, and the discussion about the exact wording on the talk page. "Soundbite" is an accurate term in this case, as it denotes the cherry-picking that took place to lift controversial statements from the enormous archive of Wright's sermons (so it fails your "unfairness" test). The choice of words regarding context was carefully worked out by consensus after studying various reliable sources, with the primary goal being a concise description that didn't give undue weight to the controversy. Of course, there is no reason why these two descriptions should not diverge. I assume that the controversy isn't given a fuller treatment in this article because of the creation of Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy and the coverage on Jeremiah Wright and A More Perfect Union. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I see. Well, for future reference, if consensus is being drawn from some other source than the article's own talk page, it would be helpful at least to mention that source in the edit summary so that there is no confusion. As for the issue at hand, my complaints actually do apply both to this article and the Barack Obama article. I've posted a comment over there, but would be happy to discuss the matter in either place (or both places). On the "unfairness" test, making the claim of whether the sermons were excerpted fairly or unfairly is a POV matter, and Wikipedia should not be making such a claim one way or the other. By removing the term altogether and depending solely on "excerpt", the POV issue is resolved by conveying the relevant information without performing an analysis of whether the excerpts were fair or not. --DachannienTalkContrib 09:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Scjessey is the editor who wrote that the reason there is so little criticism of Obama in his bio is that there is so little to criticize. And several other howlers of similar import. There is no consensus on "soundbites" and no consensus in favor of Wikipedia reporting that Obama succeeded in "placing Wright in historical context" as opposed to convincing only the already susceptible to turn away from the subject of his 23-year relationship with Wright. But I had a hard enough time getting rid of the lie that Wright "questioned the origin of AIDS" and the misleadingly anodyne "his suggestion that past U.S. policies were partially responsible for the September 11 attacks" is still in place. There are only so many battles you can fight when outnumbered by the local claque. But if you stick around I can see you'll be a help. Please do. Andyvphil (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Andy is misleading you here. You can see for yourself that I posed a rhetorical question that considered the possibility that the lack of criticism of Obama could be attributed to the lack of things to criticize. Andy is suggesting I think Obama isn't worthy of criticism, when I was merely saying that a dedicated criticism section was unwarranted. Andy's personal attack aside, he is essentially saying that trying to get a consensus on anything is difficult, and I agree that your input would be welcome. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes. "Rhetorical". He actually links to this statement, and doesn't get it: "Besides, the three individuals you are comparing Obama too (sic--Bush,H Clinton, McCain, btw) are more worthy of criticism by a considerable margin. Have you considered that the reason the article contains little criticism is because there is little to criticize about Obama?" The sincerity of his biases are not in doubt. Like the sincerity of Obama's belief that anyone who disagrees with him is a dolt or a villain. Andyvphil (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I consider the personal opinions of individual editors to be irrelevant to the goal of Wikipedia. As far as the difficulties in achieving consensus, it was like pulling teeth even getting editors to discuss the issues I brought up over at Jeremiah Wright, so it's pretty much a breath of fresh air to even be having this conversation here. --DachannienTalkContrib 14:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Dunno about the "goal of Wikipedia", but after "the personal opinions of individual editors" results in your attempts at NPOV being summarily and repeatedly and implacably reverted, and your arguments endlessly ignored while thoroughly discredited assertions are endlessly repeated... well, if it continues to smell sweet, lucky you! It's made me quite snappish, however. Andyvphil (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] overseas influence?

Many overseas politicians are copying Obama's campaign slogans eg Italian general election, 2008, Republic of China presidential election, 2008. Should this be mentioned in the article? F (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably more appropriate for those other articles. --DachannienTalkContrib 13:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an article about an event, and certainly the international ramifications would be relevant. If there are sources I don't see why not here, even if just a brief explanation. Joshdboz (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It might not be appropriate to mention it here, in part because any replication of the campaign slogans in foreign countries doesn't seem to be having an impact in this campaign. If there's a cite indicating that the overseas use of those slogans is having an effect here, it might be worth including. But I get the impression that this is a situation of completely unrelated parties picking up a campaign slogan and using it of their own accord, without the permission or involvement of Obama's campaign, and with no impact on the campaign in the US. I would be interested in looking at these citations, though. --DachannienTalkContrib 13:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changed the title of another section

I changed the title of "April Devolpemts" to "comments about small towns", as that more accurately describes the section. If you have a problem, you can change it, but please try to keep it more descriptive than "April developments", as that really doesn't say anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlebum2002 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed the title of this sub-section as well. Months where there was only one state primary, the sub-section bore the name of the state. When there was more than one state primary we titled by the month's name:
  • 6 Caucuses and primaries 2008
    • 6.1 Iowa
    • 6.2 New Hampshire
    • 6.3 Nevada
    • 6.4 South Carolina
    • 6.5 Florida
    • 6.6 Super Tuesday
    • 6.7 More February contests
    • 6.8 March primaries

Since April had only one primary, I though the title "Pennsylvania" would be the most consistent.Marylandstater (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion polling (or, one picture would be worth those thousand words)

The "opinion polling" section is starting to turn into a day-by-day play-by-play on the Gallup tracking polls. The result will quickly be a section that isn't particularly encyclopedic in style, and there may even be issues with cherry-picking POV, as certain changes in polling data are mentioned while others are left out. One way to fix this problem is to have a graph (or at least a table) of this data, leaving the text to highlight significant changes in polling data that occurred in conjunction with other notable campaign events. My concern, though, is that a graph or table of the data may be a copyright violation. Is anybody familiar enough with this sort of issue, or does anybody have any ideas for how to present this data effectively (and "safely")? --DachannienTalkContrib 16:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Black sermonic tradition

This is not appropriate as a "see also" in this article's summary of the Wright controversy; it belongs, and already is, in the Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy article as a wikilink to "rhetorical tradition" which is precisely what is being talked about. It is too far afield from this Obama presidential campaign article which is just a summary. Tvoz |talk 06:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Not appropriate in this article, and especially not appropriate as a section hatnote, which gives undue weight to the opinion that Wright's sermons are part of the black sermonic tradition. --DachannienTalkContrib 12:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you a partisan point of view pusher who likes to enforce ignorance in others, or just that terribly ignorant about blacks and religion yourself? Wrights sermons are part of the Black sermonic tradition, just like Fish and Chips are part of the British culinary tradition, or just like "The Pope is Catholic". But if you really need to see it, you can see the NPR pieces about Wright that call them that, if you like. Or see this article, which says "His commitment to political activism, coupled with his dedication to the African American sermonic tradition, has made him a highly sought-after speaker nationally and internationally." Or see the book Living Stones in the Household of God. I could go on and on. The link to Black sermonic tradition gives CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND to the sermons, and to remove it enforces ignorance, nothing more. I swear it seems that half the people around do little more than remove good content while they've never added much of anything. Ewenss (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
First, Ewenss, I'm going to assume that you're not calling me an idiot, not that I think it's ok for you to call anyone else one - can you try being civil? Here's my point: this is an article about Barack Obama's presidential campaign - the whole campaign. The Jeremiah Wright controversy correctly has a place in this article, but it was decided that it was or would be taking up too much space in this article to go into the depth it deserved without giving it undue weight in his campaign article, so it was forked off into a sub-article as is common, leaving just a short summary here. Because this is just a summary, the proper hatnote should be to direct readers to the longer sub-article that does have the space to go into an in-depth analysis and detailed explanation of all sides of this specific issue. Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy does that. As a part of that longer article, a wikilink to Black sermonic tradition seems appropriate, as it has been extensively argued that Reverend Wright's sermons ought to be seen in the light of the larger traditions from where he comes. There is a prominent wikilink to Black sermonic tradition to explicate the phrase "rhetorical tradition" that is in the sub-article. - not a "see also" there either, because you don't need that when you use the wikilink. As I'm writing this, in fact, I realized that the hatnote to TUCC in this article should also come out, and I will do that - the same logic applies. The section here should point to the longer sub-article, and the longer sub-article should refer to other articles as appropriate using wikilinks. If there are peripheral articles that relate in some way, we use the "see also", but the wikilinks are preferred if they are front and central to the text, as this one is, in the sub-article. So that is my logic for removal of the hatnotes here. This is neither partisan nor ignorant. Do you want to have a civil discussion about this, or do you see the wisdom of my argument? If you can't be civil, I'm not going to talk to you. Tvoz |talk 17:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
PS I am the second highest contributor to Barack Obama (you want the link to the page stats?) - so if you meant that last comment to me you are quite mistaken. Tvoz |talk 17:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
And I agree with the removal of the "see also" pointing to the speech as it is appropriately and properly wikilinked in the text. Tvoz |talk 17:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, should have left a message here. If a link is included in the section, then it shouldn't be linked as a "See also" per WP:OVERLINK. I also applied the same logic in removing the link to the Wright controversy article from the text of section as the article is already identified as being the "Main article" directly above the link, so the body link was redundant. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, right. Tvoz |talk 18:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This article isn't about "CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND" of Wright's history or traditions. This article is about Barack Obama's presidential campaign, 2008. Grsztalk 18:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That is right - this campaign article is not the place for it. Another editor just re-added it, after having been directed to Talk - saying that the "argument is clearly in favor" of including this hatnote here - I don't know what he's reading, but it doesn't seem to be this section of Talk where only one editor has spoken in favor of that hat on this page, and several have agreed that it is not appropriate for this article. Once again, this article is about the totality of Obama's presidential campaign, and the section on Wright is just a short summary to a longer article where a link to Black sermonic tradition does appear. Tvoz |talk 20:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just removed the link again because it isn't appropriate. At the same time, I've updated the text to mirror the version on Barack Obama (which has been pored over in excruciating detail), since that was where it was originally culled from. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That was a good edit - we've been through many rounds at Barack Obama on this and came up with this relatively stable compromise wording for the relevant section, so it makes sense to use the same wording here. Tvoz |talk 20:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
TY. It seems a bit redundant to have the same text in two related articles, but with the sub-article I don't see any choice. Just to be clear, I have no problem with these two versions diverging - I just thought it made sense given that it was getting recent editor attention. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind if the link is just at the controversy article. it's just that the same people have removed it from there too! Ewenss (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can't get a consensus to add it to that page, you have to accept that. Spamming inappropriate articles with the content is being disruptive to make a point. johnpseudo 20:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know who you mean by "the same people", Ewenss, but I did not remove it from the controversy article. In fact yesterday I thought I made an edit which only moved the wikilink that already was in the section to a place higher up in the section to the words "rhetorical tradition" which seems to be the best placement for it, but I just went to look and I don't see the move (although the link was still there, a few lines lower), so I don't know what happened. I made the edit again just now. There is a wikilink to Black sermonic tradition at "rhetorical tradition". By the way, it also is a wikilink in Jeremiah Wright. Since it is a wikilink,, we do not add a "see also" hatnote - that's wikipedia style. Tvoz |talk 20:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Subsequent to my last edit there it was, however, removed from the intro of Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy where it had been awkwardly placed. I did not make that edit, but I agree with it - the phrase did not belong there, but does belong in the "Theological justfications" section of that article where it has been and still is. Tvoz |talk 21:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I see four favoring inclusing and two faviring exclusion (from recent edit summary)
Eh? I see one favoring inclusion and everybody else favoring exclusion. Is there some other place where this is being discussed? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I see the same thing you see, SCj - only Ewenss here in this discussion, plus CyberAnth who keeps re-adding the hatnote without discussing it as requested. I didn't go any further than the recent flurry of edits - I think rather than edit warring it would behoove any people in addition to Ewenss to come here and respond to what the people opposed to including it here have said. Tvoz |talk 20:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias?

Hey everyone, I'm new here but I think this page is slightly biased in favor of Barack Obama. I'm not sure how to edit it myself (I tried but my edit was reverted...), but could you guys take a shot? One issue I noticed: next to no information about the "bitter" comments. The only thing there before I added other information was Barack Obama's very positive response ("what I said was the truth") - nothing about the controversy, about how analysts say it cost him some voters, how the Hillary Clinton campaign responded, how other democratic leaders responded, or how Barack Obama has defended himself.

Also, I noticed that on the Hillary Clinton campaign page each controversy is individually highlighted ("Ferraro comments and resignation", "The Limbaugh effect", "Comments about 1996 Bosnia trip", "Health insurance story problems"), while comments about "bittergate" are hidden within the Pennsylvania heading. There's also not much information about how Hillary Clinton is arguing that she is winning "big states" that she is better equipped to win against a Republican candidate or about how Barack Obama has responded to this.

Any thoughts? ~~Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.66.215 (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(I'm the person who made that comment, I wasn't signed in) Mgmg (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think s/he's right. A mention that Hillary actually won in Pennsylvania and that there was actually a negative reaction to the "bitter" comments was removed without much justification other than they liked it better the way it was before Bachcell (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Both of these are mentioned in the article in the Pennsylvania section, so I'm not quite sure what the gripe could be with this. --Ubiq (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's because they had to be put back in. Also noticed that while there were lots of details about the size of Obama's rallies and whistle stop tours, there was no mention of the critical ABC TV debate which was credited for stopping Obama's momentum, and Obama's performance was judged as weak. There appears to be a fairly consistent pattern of leaving out events and reactions critical of Obama when there was a passage mentioning the bitter comments, and his defence, but no mention of the critical comments Obama was responding to when he said the words were poorly chosen. Is there any explanation for writing the number of votes without mentioning that it was a win for Clinton? This article should be at least as balanced as the mainstream press accounts.Bachcell (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


"there was no mention of the critical ABC TV debate which was credited for stopping Obama's momentum" Not so sure this (or at least this alone) was credited for stopping his momentum. I'm pretty sure the "bitter" comments are more commonly believed to have had a greater impact.
"Is there any explanation for writing the number of votes without mentioning that it was a win for Clinton?" Not much, but presumably, people who can read an article long enough to get to the point you're referring to can also count, and decide if one number is greater than another number.
"This article should be at least as balanced as the mainstream press accounts." You're presupposing that others here share your view that the mainstream press accounts are balanced. I tend to think mainstream press accounts are quite unbalanced. --Ubiq (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of biases, the delegate/popular vote maps clearly exhibit a bias in favor of Clinton. MI and FL totals are included, and while the caption acknowledges that they don't as of now count for anything, it still frames them as Clinton victories that do not count - which is of course the Clinton campaign position. Obama was not on the ballot in MI and didn't campaign in FL, as his campaign would tell you.Tjm402 (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim Rumors

There seems to be a lot of material on the rumors that Obama might have attended a Muslim school as a child. I wonder if some of the details might be removed since this didn't end up being such a big issue in the campaign. I never hear it mentioned in the media anymore. 67.101.47.212 (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I took this sentence out because it seems to have a couple of problems:

The process began in 2004, when columnist Andy Martin issued a press release falsely alleging that Obama is "a Muslim who has concealed his religion,"[188] a statement which received little media attention.

How can we know that this press release, which received little media attention, started the process? 67.101.47.212 (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A plethora of polls

I don't have time to sort out the conflicting data, but if the regular editors of this page want to update the polling section, a plethora of new polls came out yesterday. Specifically: CBS/New York Times; NBC/Wall Street Journal; Fox News (which also has a related poll on Obama and Wright); and CNN's poll of polls. I tried and failed to make sense of the data over at Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy — since I clearly can't synthesize this into anything coherent, I hand the data over to you good folks. Good luck. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I don't understand the wording...

In the section "Impact of Rev. Jeremiah Wright" this clause starts the second sentence:

"ABC News found and excerpted racially and videos of politically charged sermons by Rev. Wright,..."

English is my first language, and I don't understand this. Could someone kindly explain what it means? Thanks.

(I changed it yesterday to the following:

"ABC News found and excerpted videos of racially and politically charged sermons by Rev. Wright,..."

but it was reverted back with the comment that it does make sense.)

--RenniePet (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Rennie - you are correct, the sentence was garbled and your correction was right. The sentence should read:

"ABC News found and excerpted videos of racially and politically charged sermons..." Johnpseudo must have read it too quickly. Tvoz/talk 16:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note: I was talking only about the word order, not the choice of words. "ABC News found and excerpted racially and videos of politically charged sermons by Rev. Wright,..." is definitely garbled as the words "videos of" were misplaced. I now have replaced "videos of" with "clips from" as we had it, but now in proper word order. Tvoz/talk 16:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Obama shaking hands uploaded

I have uploaded a picture I took of Obama shaking hands with an impromptu crowd in Portland, Oregon as he was leaving his hotel last Saturday afternoon and going to an event. It's at Image:Barack Obama shaking hands, Portland, Oregon.jpg --Jason McHuff (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional controversies

Both Meeks and Pfleger have received broad attention and warrant coverage in the article. The article is incomplete without them. Trilemma (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bogus KKK endorsement

I've added information to the article that shoots down the idea that is going around that the KKK is actually supporting Barack for president. One of the sources comes from Obama's own website. Someone keeps deleting the info as "non-notable", "poorly referenced", etc. 5 references for 4 sentences of text is poor referencing? I give up guys, if you all would prefer that people believe the incorrect info of the Klan endorsement like so many folks do right now then so be it. Sf46 (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Snopes and Urbanlegends are in the business of shooting down nonsense. The Daily Squib is a tabloid. The Obama site you linked to is a community blog, not an official publication by the Obama campaign. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for tabloid material or nonsense. johnpseudo 22:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting article

As it now appears that Obama is fairly certain to be the Democratic Party candidate for president, what is everyone's thoughts on splitting this article into smaller sub-articles? This article is already rather large with 76kb of readable prose and there is bound to be additional developments that will come in the general election portion of the campaign. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely, and I think that we'll have to drastically cut this article to prepare it for another 5 months of developments. The primary/caucus section could definitely use the most summarization work. johnpseudo 00:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Obviously I've started splitting the article into two. I've started off with the low hanging fruit, but I have some concerns. I'm thinking the Pre-Primary Campaign developments section should be moved into the primaries sub-article, but I'm starting to get concerned that if I pile too much of this article into the primary article, we'll end up with a 4-5 paragraph section for all of the primary/caucus portion of the campaigning, a 4-5 paragraph section for the general election, and 30 paragraphs for the media coverage, the "issues" section, and the internet section. The media coverage and "issues" section certainly contains things that will end up crossing both the primary and general elections, but it just feels off to ignore them in the primary article and to give them so much weight in this article. Does anyone have any ideas on how we should handle this? --Bobblehead (rants) 00:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't go with a three-level structure. Have the main Barack Obama article serve as the summary for both the primary article and the general election article. Have media coverage, etc. sections in both as appropriate. Creating a three-level structure will be a ton of redundancy, extra work, citation maintenance, out-of-synch contents, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Oooo. Excellent idea. ;) Time to start undoing what I did. Hee.;) --Bobblehead (rants) 01:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup. You didn't see that splitting I did.;) Call me speedy. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Great idea and thanks for the effort. Is that the way it's done for other major party Presidential candidates? We should be consistent, but that seems like the right thing to do. Just a little caution - don't jump the gun. Wait until Hillary concedes.... Wikidemo (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought that the obvious place to move all of the primary material would be 'Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008'. I agree that creating sub-articles from here would create too much link depth from the Barack Obama article. I'm afraid it's going to take a lot more summarization work and less wholesale cut-and-pasting. johnpseudo 01:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I concur - there should be two articles - one for the primary race and one for the general election. --Mr Beale (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Sinclair

Larry Sinclair is a man that claims he did crack and performed oral sex with Barack Obama in the back of a limo in 1999. Oh yeah, and Obama may have murdered a choir boy close to Christmas. Here's his blog. Though his accusations have been circulating the internet and tabloid magazines for months, they're just now making a few minor news sources. Someone referenced it in the article, but I removed it because right now I think it's just gossip. Any opinions? - Kip the Dip (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is all just the word of one man who has a long and well-documented history of convictions for fraud. He also has a outstanding warrant out for his arrest in Colorado, and has been accused of writing a bad check just last year in Laredo, Texas. This story isn't making the news anywhere except on fringe websites and blogs, and if you check back, there is *less* coverage now that there was back when he first came forward. There is absolutely no reason to include this story in the article. There is not a shred of corroborating evidence to back up his claims.24.28.2.19 (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, yes. Believe me, you're preaching to the choir. I just want to hear others' opinions. - Kip the Dip (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obama's great uncle and the Nazi labor camp

This article under "media coverage" discusses the Republican National Committee criticism of Obama's claim that his uncle helped liberate Auschwitz. The Wikipedia article Ohrdruf forced labor camp about the camp (part of the Buchenwald system) had a recent posting stating that Obama's claim was a complete lie, based on material which has been on certain right wing blogs claiming that he had no great uncle in the army in WW2, based on original research into records from various sources. The claim was that his great uncle was Charles W. Payne, and that Charles W. Payne from Kansas was in the Navy. An obituary of that Charles W. Payne shows he was no great uncle of Obama. Politifact.com, [18] from the St. Petersburg Times investigated and it seems that Charles Thomas Payne, a living person (age 83) is the great uncle in question, and served in the 89th Infantry which liberated the Ohrdruf camp. How much, if any, of this should be in this article? It could be of encyclopedic importance if claims that "Obama is a liar" are based on people's interpretation of inaccurate and incomplete genealogical and military records. Edison (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

One hint could be that blogs are not reliable sources and the fact that they got the wrong Thomas Payne is a pretty good vindication of this. Once Obama admitted he misspoke about which camp his great uncle was part of liberating the story pretty much became a non-issue. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The Republican National Committee and/or conservative bloggers seem to be pushing the meme that "Obama exaggerates and lies all the time" and the Auschwitz/uncle item seems to be a major focus of this effort [19], much like the campaign talking point against Kerry was that he "flip-flopped." Googling Obama uncle lie gets 163,000 hits, many about the Auschwitz/Ohrfruf uncle/great-uncle incident. If exaggeration/lies is the meme of choice then this episode needs coverage in the article. Edison (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
There is already a paragraph in the Media coverage section that covers the misstatement and then the correction. The blogs getting the wrong person isn't a particularly important part of the issue. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The important part is the massive spinning of the meme that Obama lied and exaggerated, with ridicule of his having a secret uncle no one ever heard of who liberated Auschwitz with the Red Army, or a great uncle who liberated Nazi concentration camps in Europe from a ship in the Pacific. Recent presidential campaigns have been based largely on attack ads and talking points based on memes such as the supposed Kerry "flip-flops." Edison (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] separate General election sub-article

Maybe we should split the primary and general election parts of the campaign into two articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.11.170 (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)